It wasn't unexpected, but that didn't make it any less heartbreaking to read: Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell suddenly said that President Trump's nominee would be voted on by the full Senate. I was then immediately drawn back to the battle that still haunts me: the failure to confirm Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.

Many, including Republicans, have pointed out the hypocrisy of McConnell's statement: in 2016, following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. But even in March, eight months before the presidential election, congressional Republicans and conservative interest groups fought tooth and nail to block Garland's confirmation. They succeeded. Garland was never voted on the Senate floor, and not even a hearing was held.

The rejection shocked many and set a new precedent for how Supreme Court nominees are nominated and confirmed in a presidential election year; NDRC's Director of Litigation, Marina Jenkins, has been discussing this operation on my podcast "Your Presidential Playlist" (new tab), described the maneuver as a "choose your own adventure in interference." Later, McConnell bragged about this political maneuvering in a 2018 speech: one of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and said, 'Mr. President, you cannot fill a Supreme Court vacancy.'"

From the moment I heard that Justice Scalia had died, I knew that the campaign would undermine my work. I was lying in bed, sick as a dog from my first pregnancy, when the text chain of women lawyers in social justice began reporting the news. When Garland was nominated, we were not surprised. We felt he was a well-respected and well-supported man on both sides of the aisle. [But that was the beginning of the 2016 presidential primaries, and the Democrats were preoccupied with setting the agenda for a Clinton presidency or derailing it with the rise of Bernie Sanders. There seemed to be no energy in the fight to get a decent person appointed to the Supreme Court. We tried anyway. As vice president for campaigns at the Center for American Progress, the largest progressive think tank, I worked with Progress Iowa, the local organization of Senator Chuck Grassley, then chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to send Iowans to Washington, DC to talk to him. Each and every Iowan was invited to speak with him. Each Iowan shared a personal story about how their lives would be drastically changed by who fills the vacant seat on the Supreme Court. One person might lose access to medical care because of a pre-existing condition; another might live in an area contaminated by lax environmental regulations. When Senator Grassley refused to meet with them, we publicly shared their stories at a rally before the courthouse. [We could not believe that the Senators seemed utterly content to ignore the President's nominee for eight months. Even with targeted storytelling, we could not galvanize the country enough to make the Republicans believe that they were paying a political price for leaving this seat vacant for so long.

Today, just six weeks after the presidential election, McConnell intends to aggressively pursue a Trump candidacy. He argues that the difference between blocking Garland's vote and blocking Justice Ginsburg's vacancy is that Republicans retained control of the Senate in the 2018 election. What he fails to note is that nationally, Democrats received about 12 million more votes than Republicans.

Politically, Republicans are walking on fragile ground. The energy today is different from the apathy of 2016. The public is more attentive and the left is more entrenched. The right will try to energize a base of supporters who are fed up with President Trump by showing that appointing and confirming an extreme conservative attorney general is what they really want from him. This strategy may backfire on many independents and swing-state Republicans who voted for Democrats in 2018.

The spotlight will be on the Senate's constitutional role of "advising and consenting" to presidential nominations. While there is no specific mandate for this role, it is now understood that the Senate has the job of vetting presidential nominees through (televised) hearings and approving them through votes.

The rhetoric surrounding this process includes a heated debate about the "Thurmond Rule" (a general agreement, though not a written rule, that the Senate will suspend the judicial nominee process in the year of a presidential inauguration). If McConnell now abandons this rule as an act of further blatant partisanship, he will do irreparable damage to the legitimacy of the Court for generations to come. Republicans are also likely to refer to the so-called "Biden Rule" and Biden's role as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1992. During the Garland confirmation process, Republicans cited Biden's comments against running an extreme candidate in the middle of the election season. Of course, this statement has particular significance today. Nevertheless, Biden has a track record of approving 17 judges during the election cycle.

The confirmation hearings may be an opportunity for Senator and vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris to once again take center stage. Her prosecutorial prowess made national news during the Kavanaugh Supreme Court hearings, and it is expected to be on display once the hearings are convened. In the current oversaturated media environment, this could highlight the strength of the Democratic vote. In addition, nearly all of the weak Senate Republicans up for reelection this year, John Cornyn (Texas), Tom Tillis (North Carolina), and Joni Ernst (Iowa), are on the Judiciary Committee. Senator Lindsey Graham, the committee chair who sets the dates and format of the hearings, is tied with challenger Jamie Harrison, a rising Democratic star, in the closest race of his career.

Democrats are not typically single issue court voters like Republicans, but that may change this year. Biden needs to secure those on the left who think he is imperfect and may not be so willing to vote for him; being able to replace RBG's seat is a big issue that may turn Democratic voters around.

With voting already underway or about to begin in many states, one can expect renewed energy from voters of both parties. People know that Justice Ginsburg's replacement will affect our rights and the world for generations to come. Recent Supreme Court cases on issues such as reproductive rights, environmental regulations, health care, workers' rights, and immigration show voters just how big the stakes are in this fight. As the campaigning season gets into full swing and voter outreach ramps up, the fight over the Supreme Court will be the centerpiece of the last spurt, with only 43 days, not eight months, until Election Day on November 3.