Only if the potus has an -R. This court has been a caricature of siding with evil whenever given the opportunity.

It's composed of the three honest judges and six partisan Federalist Society hacks who will make up whatever terrible "justification" to rule for the powerful and rich.

I'll say it again, because that flag was completely unfair and people really need this context:

2 of those hacks were gifted on silver platters by establishment Dems.

1. They could have fought harder (or at all) to get Merrick Garland confirmed.

2. RBG needed to step down.

Many, many people warned of the dire consequences of these decisions. Now here we are.

Edit: I'm rate limited, but in response to Tyler below:

> What were the Dems supposed to do exactly?

Anything. "We tried nothing, and we're all out of ideas". Some ideas:

1. A public pressure campaign. Mobilise public opinion and leverage media. Try.

2. Procedural tactics in the Senate. Delay bills, force debate, etc. Dems can be highly cunning & competent when fighting against progressives, so I know they had the ability.

3. Explore legal avenues to hold Republicans responsible for fucking with Democracy like that. Accountability; what a concept.

The Rs refused to given Garland his day in Congress, and they had the majority. What were the Dems supposed to do exactly?

Get control of the senate. It wouldn't have mattered if they gave him his day, he wasn't going to get nominated. The republicans nominated Robert Bork back in the day, and the dems (then in control of the senate) voted it down. It's basically the same thing - the system working as intended.

No, it bloody well isn’t.

Republicans refused to hold the vote on Garland, spouting off nonsense about “No new justices in an election year”. The same people rammed judges through in Trumps last year. Typical right wing hypocrisy.

And if they'd had the vote? The result would have been no. Same result.

It would have put a lot of prominent Republicans - including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell - in an awkward position because a number of them had previously said he was a great candidate for the court.

So, they either make a liar out of themselves, or become a rank hypocrite.

They are politicians...

Anyway, I'll grant it's symbolically different and it wasn't a good look. In practice though, the senate has to be on board with the nomination and in both cases they were not and it didn't go through in either.

The funny thing is.. we are in a similar spot now too -- what with gerontocracy unwilling to let go of power -- and, it will likely surprise no one, amazingly long lived consequences.

Under the same line of thought, soldiers in the military will always follow what their commander say, least order to comes to remove a soldier and their loved ones.