Imagine the following scenario, the loser of the 2000 election takes the case to the

United States Supreme Court and the court votes four to four because there's only 8 justices and there is not a 9th justice filling the

seat of Ruth Bata Ginsburg. What happens then? Well I'll tell you on the Dersha.

Here's a possible scenario that will keep you up at night.

The election's very close. The votes are contested.

There are challenges to mail-in ballots. It's Bush versus Gore all over again. The loser, whoever it may be, takes the case to the United States

Supreme Court. The public is awaiting a decision. Who's going to win? Who's going to be the president?

The decision comes down.

It's four to four.

There is no ninth justice.

The Senate hasn't confirmed the replacement for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

What happens? Can we accept a situation like that?

Is this a good persuasive argument for why the president should now nominate

a replacement and the Senate should quickly confirm a replacement before the election?

We're going to talk about that.

Let me first lay out what the constitutional issues are.

Number one, the president has the constitutional authority

until the day is no longer president.

January 19, 2021, if the president is defeated for office. He has the authority to

nominate somebody to become a justice to the Supreme court. We even have precedent for that.

John Adams was a lame duck president in 1800 and he nominated at that point at the end of his term while he was no longer going to be the next president probably the greatest chief justice in American history John Marshall and John Marshall was confirmed by the Senate,

literally just days before Thomas Jefferson

...