After RBG

Ruth Bader Ginsberg's passing, while not completely unexpected, sets up yet another bitter partisan struggle.  McConnell refused to hold confirmation hearings for Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, 10 months before the election, saying: "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president". 

Ironically, he explained this as simply adhering to the "Biden Rule", a reference to a speech Joe Bide made on the Senate floor in 1992, in which hs argued that Supreme Court confirmations should not take place in the midst of a political campaign season. Now, with just five weeks before the election, McConnell has had an epiphany and sees things quite differently. Hallelujah, and praise the Lord. 

Unfortunately, that creates a real dilemma for the Dems. Consider these scenarios.

1. If Trump were to win the election, the Senate would likely remain Republican, and the timing of the hearings would be moot.  
2. If the GOP retains the Senate, but Trump looses, arguably the most likely scenario, they will certainly try to have his nomination confirmed before Trump leaves office. 
3. And if they loose the Senate (and if that's the case, Trump would almost certainly have lost his reelection bid) there is a good chance the Senate will try to confirm Trump's pick before the new Senate is seated.

All these roads lead, albeit with decreasing certainty, to a 6-3 conservative majority on the Court.   

The dilemma is this: the harder the Dems push to forestall the confirmation until after the inauguration, the more Trump's base will be motivated to get out the vote for the GOP, which makes the lower number scenarios more likely; that is it will reduce the chances of retaking the Senate, and increase the chances  of loosing the White House.  But if they do nothing, McConnell will with 100% certainty confirm Trump's pick. So, dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.