HIGH DRAMA AROUND THE HIGH COURT
By Lisa Desjardins, @LisaDNews
Correspondent
 
In the days since Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, Senate Republicans have moved en masse toward the possibility of voting to confirm a Supreme Court nominee before Election Day. Only Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, have voiced opposition, both saying it is in fact too close to the election – which is now six weeks away – while a handful of senators have remained quiet on the matter. 
 
If President Donald Trump makes his nomination on Saturday, as expected, that will leave 38 days until the election. If that nominee is confirmed before then, it would be the closest confirmation to a presidential election in U.S. history. (Our producer Saher Khan points to 1892 as the next closest example. In that case, President Benjamin Harrison’s nominee was confirmed four months before the election.) 
 
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has yet to lay out a firm timeline for a vote, instead saying today that Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham will determine the first steps of – the committee process. 
 
In the meantime, Republicans and Democrats both are answering for reversals in positions since 2016, when President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, was blocked by McConnell and Senate Republicans from even getting a hearing. 
 
With Republicans in power – they have a 53-47 majority plus control of the White House, which means Vice President Mike Pence can act as a tie-breaker in a split vote – we start with them. First, a look at how they explained their opposition to voting on Garland’s nomination in 2016. Most focused on the coming election, which was eight months in the future, and the desire to allow voters to weigh in on who they wanted to choose the next Supreme Court justice. This year, in contrast, Senate Republicans argue that when the White House and Senate are controlled by the same party, which they were not in 2016, Supreme Court nominations can generally proceed regardless of proximity to an election.  

To get our heads around the discussion, we examined the precise words of each GOP senator, in 2016 and now, in the wake of Ginsburg’s death. Click here for our full story.



FIVE OVERLOOKED POLITICAL STORIES FROM THE PAST WEEK
By Ian Couzens, @iancouzenz
Politics production assistant
 
EPA postpones speaker series on racism after White House order - Sept. 15. The series, which would have highlighted the threat extended exposure to pollution can have on marginalized communities, was put on hold while the EPA reviews a Trump administration directive that all government agencies halt certain race-related training it considers to be “un-American.”  Why it matters: Amid a nationwide reckoning on race, EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler recently called for a renewed focus on environmental justice in Trump’s second term, but the Trump administration has put up roadblocks, including a budget proposal this year that would cut $4.8 million of the agency’s $9.5 million environmental justice enforcement budget. -- Politico

Judge blocks Michigan's ban on transporting voters to polls - Sept. 18. District Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis’ ruling said that the 1895 rule conflicted with U.S. election laws. Why it matters: By effectively lifting the ban, lower-income communities and people unable to transport themselves to the polls may now have an easier time voting; groups like Priorities USA, a liberal PAC that challenged the ban in court, are planning to spend millions on mobilizing and turning out voters in the battleground state. -- The Washington Post
 
‘Everyone’s got leverage’: Dreading a 50-50 Senate split - Sept. 17. If Biden wins the presidency, Democrats will need to gain three seats in the Senate to have control of the chamber; if Trump wins, they will need four. If the Senate is split 50-50, the vice president would likely be called upon regularly to be the tie-breaker on party-line votes. Why it matters: A 50-50 split requires immense party discipline -- if a single member steps out of line, he or she can tip a vote in favor of the opposition. And at a time of heightened polarization, that could result in a lot of gridlock, preventing Congress and whoever is president from pushing through their legislative agenda. -- Politico

Trump retreats from television ads amid campaign cash crunch - Sept. 18. At the start of July, the Trump campaign was spending nearly $10 million a week on television ads, but by the end of August weekly spending dropped to $2.2 million. Why it matters:  Biden was spending $19 million a week in late August, and is outspending Trump in critical battlegrounds including Florida, which could make all the difference in states where the difference between winning and losing can come down to just a few thousand votes. -- The Financial Times
 
Feds explored possibly charging Portland officials in unrest - Sept 17. The DOJ is looking into whether the rhetoric and actions of Portland officials contributed to violent clashes between police and demonstrators. Why it matters: The DOJ’s exploration of criminal or civil charges underscores the Trump administration’s law and order messaging that has sought to characterize the largely peaceful protests around the country as violent and blame Democratic officials. -- Politico


#POLITICSTRIVIA
By Kate Grumke, @KGrumke
Politics producer
 
In memory of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Friday at the age of 87, here is some RBG trivia. Before she was nominated to the Supreme Court, Ginsburg was an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, directing its Women’s Rights Project. Ginsburg argued six landmark cases before the Supreme Court.
 
Our question: How many of these cases did Ginsburg win?
 
Send your answers to [email protected] or tweet using #PoliticsTrivia. The first correct answers will earn a shout-out next week.
 
Last week, in a complete coincidence, we asked about another justice: In light of the anniversary of Sandra Day O’Connor’s nomination to the Supreme Court, which state was the first to have a woman serve on its highest court?
 
The answer: Ohio
 
Both O’Connor and Ginsburg were trailblazers, but another woman paved the way before them. The first woman to reach the highest court in a state was Florence Allen in Ohio. 
 
Allen holds many firsts. As soon as the 19th Amendment was ratified, she ran for a county judgeship and became the first woman elected to a judgeship in the U.S. In 1922, she was elected to the Ohio Supreme Court, making her the first woman to serve on a state’s highest court. 
 
Allen was also the first woman appointed to a federal appeals court by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1934. And she was reportedly the first woman to be considered for a spot on the U.S. Supreme Court, first by FDR after a suggestion by his wife, Eleanor Roosevelt, then again by Harry Truman at the suggestion of his supporters. In 1948, Eleanor Roosevelt wrote about Allen, “if a President of the United States should decide to nominate a woman for the Supreme Court, it should be Judge Allen.”
 
Congratulations to our winners: Barry Weinstein and Jackie Austin!!
 
Thank you all for reading and watching. We’ll drop into your inbox next week.