U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away Friday evening, September 18, 2020, after serving nearly three decades on the nation’s highest court. Known affectionately as the “Notorious RBG,” she left an immediate wake of grief among her most ardent supporters and ideological opponents alike—but the aftermath of Ginsburg’s death quickly polarized despite the volume of condolences.

Ginsburg dictated a statement to her granddaughter, reported by NPR, saying, “It is my most fervent wish that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell voiced a contrasting intention.

“…Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda,” he said in a statement released less than two hours following news of Ginsburg’s passing, “particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise. President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

Now, the country mourns the passing of an icon while fervently preparing for what comes next. Federal judges are nominated to lifetime terms by the president and confirmed by the Senate’s vote. McConnell has exclusive control over whether or not and when a judicial nominee receives a vote on the Senate floor. Each U.S. state has two senators representing them in Congress, with a total 53 Republicans currently outnumbering the 47 Democratic Senators, which means at least four Republicans would need to “defect,” so to speak, from their party’s expectations in order to bar a Trump appointee from the Supreme Court.

McConnell has boasted that blocking President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, in 2016 was “the most consequential thing I’ve ever done,” and that statement may now be more accurate than ever. But the controversy he received then was slight relative to the uproar following his statement promising to replace Ginsburg’s seat with a Trump judge with fewer than 45 days until November 3.

In what has been come to be known as the “Merrick Rule,” McConnell refused to allow the Senate to vote on Obama’s nominee in February of 2016, about ten months before the next presidential election. In fact, he declined to have Garland meet with the Senate, solidifying the obstruction. There was a “longstanding tradition of not filling vacancies on the Supreme Court in the middle of a presidential election year,” McConnell said.

He has reasoned that his change of heart in this present case is based on the party control of the executive branch and Senate. At the time of Garland’s nomination, the sitting president was a Democrat, but the American people had since elected a Republican majority to the Senate, and therefore the Senate should wait until the country had voted on the next president as well before adding another Justice to fill the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat.

“Senator McConnell made his position clear in 2016 when he held Justice Scalia’s seat vacant for 10 months so he could deny President Obama an appointment—a goal he himself admitted,” California Senator Dianne Feinstein (a Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee) said in a statement. She insisted that before Inauguration Day, “Under no circumstances should the Senate consider a replacement.”

McConnell’s promise to vote on a new appointee could manifest in a few ways.

If the Senate loses enough seats to Democrats in November, McConnell could opt to hold a vote before the new Congress is sworn in on January 3, no matter who the incoming president is (who would not be sworn in until later, on January 20). There would, undoubtedly, be major controversy if this scenario plays out with a Biden victory.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ambiguously addressed such a possibility. “We have our options, we have arrows in our quiver,” she said on an ABC interview when asked if the House could move to impeach Trump (again) or Attorney General Bill Barr to prevent a lame-duck-appointed Justice. “Right now, our main goal—and I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg would want that to be—would be to protect the integrity of the election as we protect the American people from the coronavirus,” she said.

“We have a responsibility—we take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States—we have a responsibility to meet the needs of the American people,” said Pelosi. “…When we weigh the equities…protecting our democracy requires us to use every arrow in our quiver.”

Alternatively, the timeline could be much more succinct. Although the process to confirm a Justice usually takes longer, the procedure could be hurried along to completion before Election Day.

Hastening to fill the seat seems to be the President’s preferred strategy. “We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us,” Trump tweeted following his official statement on Ginsburg’s death, “the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices. We have this obligation, without delay!”

Trump already released a list of potential appointees in early September, an almost-entirely white lineup of reliably conservative minds that are suspected to overturn major progressive decisions and inexorably sway upcoming opinions. Trump all but promised a female appointment at a recent campaign rally; currently rumored to be at the top of the list are Judges Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa.

The concept of McConnell pushing through another conservative Justice has put renewed vigor into Democrats’ idea of “packing” the Court (by adding additional seats through an act of

Congress) and ending the filibuster, goals that would depend on the Senate flipping into liberal hands and Biden securing the presidency.

However, perhaps the most poignant and immediate repercussion of Ginsburg’s passing is the presidential election itself: with COVID-19 increasing mail-in voting rates and already months of fear building around a potentially fraudulent (or, at the very least, incredibly complex) election, the Supreme Court is very likely to have to weigh in on the results.

The 2000 presidential election saw the Court stepping in to end a dispute on Florida’s ballot count when the Justices put a stop to the state-mandated recount. But what happens if there are only eight Justices to rule on aspects of legitimacy this November?

The Supreme Court begins a new term on October 5, and there are already highly anticipated cases on the docket even without the election itself requiring extra judicial attention. Both the Robert Mueller Russia investigation and the Affordable Care Act will face major changes, but a split Court could reasonably lead to a reschedule or redirection to lower courts in such cases. The election, on the other hand, won’t tolerate such flexibility.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who is among Trump’s top candidates to fill the Supreme Court seat, worried on a Fox News interview that an evenly divided judiciary would lead to a constitutional crisis come November—a fear which was already in circulation when there were nine Justices.

A handful of Republican senators—such as Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski and Maine’s Susan Collins—have voiced doubts about voting on a nominee so close to the election. To succeed in delaying the nomination, at least four of them will have to vote against Trump’s pick (a tie-breaking decision would fall to Vice President Mike Pence).

The closer November looms, the more likely it seems that a constitutional crisis will be inevitable. Even without a quick confirmation, Trump (along with any Republican senators who fear losing their seats) will seal the final days of his campaign with a promise to fill the seat promptly upon reelection. And even if Democrats succeed in electing Biden and flipping the Senate, their election might not come in time to stop a third Trump-nominated Justice from being seated. A conservative-leaning court could prove to be a thorn in the side of a liberal-leaning president and Congress.