Friday's death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg introduces an entirely new array of considerations for the Nov. 3 election and beyond. Supreme Court nominations had largely been eclipsed as an election issue as voters' attention turned to President Donald's Trump's handling of the pandemic response, ongoing economic calamity and rising racial tensions. Suddenly, the big issue is whether a GOP-dominated Senate should force a quick and nasty vote on a new nominee to fill Ginsburg's vacant seat or let voters weigh in on Nov. 3.

All considerations now hinge on the course moderate Republicans choose for their party. Will they back cutthroat opportunists willing to compromise all notions of fairness in order to tilt the court even further to the right? Or will moderates finally draw the line?

The coming days will serve as a defining moment for the party. Forcing a quick vote means embracing blatant hypocrisy, given the justification Republican leaders gave in 2016 for delaying action on a new nominee after the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia nine months before the presidential election.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stated at the time: "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." At his direction, Republican Senators froze out President Barack Obama's nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, refusing even to grant him an audience.

Now, only seven weeks before the Nov. 3 election McConnell says he will proceed quickly with whomever Trump nominates, as if he never uttered those words in 2016. Fortunately, his chances of success are slim. Weighed down by Trump's political baggage, too many Senate Republican incumbents are struggling to retain their own seats on Nov. 3 to risk such a bruising political fight.

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, in particular, is behind in the polls against her Democratic challenger. She has already declared her opposition to a quick vote. The incoming Senate Judiciary Committee chair, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, is on record opposing a vote this close to the election. The outgoing chair, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, is similarly inclined, as are at least three other key senators.

Of course, they took such stands when the idea of another Supreme Court vacancy was just a hypothetical. Cold calculations could soon outweigh principled stands of the past.

Now is the time for Republican moderates everywhere to defend the soul of their party. If win-at-all-costs duplicity is to be the party's new mantra, then now is the time for a moderate gut check. If principles of fairness and bipartisan consensus still mean something, then now is the time to retake control of the party and demand a return to its bedrock foundations. If not, then the tyranny of the far right will define the party's future course.

REPRINTED FROM THE ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

Photo credit: AJEL at Pixabay