RBG's parting message that her "most fervent wish is that [she] will not be replaced until a new president is installed," while dramatic, is meaningless.  This "jurist of historic stature" might have had complete control over her courtroom, but she has no authority — alive or from beyond the grave — to hand down rulings about her successor or the process by which her replacement is selected.  Calls by Democrats to "honor her dying wishes" are disingenuous, and no one should be goaded into thinking otherwise.  

Generally, Republicans treat their political enemies, who have passed on, with respect and tend to shower them with compliments about their dedication, heroics, lofty goals, and admirable behavior — even when the deceased had a history of treating conservatives with contempt.  Consider the fawning praise heaped on the late Rep. John Lewis even though he was no friend to Republicans.  Democrats, on the other hand, rarely hide their disdain for recently departed Republicans, as we saw when the president’s brother died and #wrongtrump was trending on social media; in Matt Taibbi's hate-filled screed at Rolling Stone titled Roger Ailes Was One of the Worst Americans Ever; or in Ana Marie Cox's attempt at WashPo to turn her hate for Herman Cain into a mask-wearing lesson while stating that "Cain was…not a good person" and "my life will move along just fine with no more Herman Cain in it." 

We don't know what kind of pain RBG was in, if she was taking morphine, was lucid, or actually said what is claimed.  Friends of mine who died from pancreatic cancer were so doped up on morphine when I visited, they had no idea who I was or where they were.  But, assuming she was lucid and indeed made this dying declaration, it was rank political theater for her to consciously tie the very personal event of her death to the blood sport of politics and intentionally insinuate herself into a political firestorm on the eve of a contentious election.  That she would dictate the terms of her replacement knowing full well that the nomination is the constitutional duty of the president and the confirmation is the constitutional duty of the Senate is at best cheeky.  It seems incontrovertible she wanted her death and the ensuing vacancy to be the political football they have become. 

Although Republicans have treated her death with kid gloves, the mere mention of her replacement has sent Democrats into a tizzy.  Like it or not, the vacancy issue is a burning question for most Americans because it is the natural and inevitable consequence of her passing.  It has been the subject of speculation for many years, through several administrations and was thrust into the political limelight by her fervent wishes.  Every American with a pulse knew that when the day came, if Republicans controlled the White House and Senate, as they do, swords would be drawn quickly, as they have been. 

No sooner did she pass than the usual progressive suspects picked up the baton and let the threats rip.  AOC called on her troops to "Let this moment radicalize you."  "I need you to be ready."  "Mass movements are the answer."  Schumer told the Senate Democratic Caucus, "Nothing is off the table next year," which is a more genteel way of saying "by any means necessary."  Further echoing the sentiments of BLM leader Hank Newsome, who called to burn it all down, media pundits like Reza Aslan snarled, "If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f------ thing down."  The Week's David Faris argued, "If Democrats hold firm and threaten massive escalation, they can stop McConnell from doing his worst here" (emphasis added).  As if on cue, impeachment-happy Pelosi threatened to impeach the president for the high crime of following his constitutional duty to nominate a successor.

Despite all of this, Republicans have soberly balanced the respect due her family with the pressing need for her replacement—to wit, President Trump will make the nomination after her funeral.  Yet the left wants it to look as though Republicans dishonored the trailblazing RBG.  Thus, for the purpose of raising funds, MoveOn.org exploited neutral comments made by Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz: "Mere minutes after the tragic passing of [RBG], Senate Republicans couldn't resist issuing despicable responses."  Those despicable responses?  Mitch McConnell "practically gloated, saying, 'President Trump's nominee will receive a vote on the [Senate floor],'" and Ted Cruz "urge[d] Trump to nominate a new justice 'next week.'"  That is despicable? 

The deathbed wishes of this titan of law are pure political gamesmanship —a dog whistle to Democrat attack dogs to gather their hounds and sic them on the Republicans, a political message to fellow travelers to get the resistance-to-Trump-filling-the-vacancy ball rolling. 

It's also very likely this parting shot assuaged her guilt: I should have retired during the Obama Administration so he could have appointed a younger version of me.  Instead, I arrogantly stayed in the game despite my ailing body, demonstrating my heroic commitment to work, and ended up a pile of dust for the egotistical faker to sweep up and toss away for a conservative jurist.  My fervent wish is that you clean up my mess and don't allow that to happen.  Again, pure politics.

RBG's death is being used to lionize progressive policies while demonizing conservative policies.  Republicans should not be heckled into radio silence while Democrats manipulate her death to gain ground in the final throes of a contentious election.  First, we can honor someone's life while respectfully addressing pressing political issues that impact an impending election.  Secondly, her death and its impact on the Court were the subject of rigorous debate and speculation while she was alive!  Continuing that discussion upon her death is hardly disrespectful.  Finally, what's good for the Democrat goose is good for the Republican gander: the fact that the Democrats have been using her death to solicit funds, call to arms, comment, and strategize (e.g., Schumer meeting with the Senate Democratic Caucus) means we can do the same. 

Putting aside the hyperbolic antics of the Democrats, this is a test for Senate Republicans.  Will they finally throw away their tiddlywinks and fight back equally hard if not harder, within the strictures of the Constitution, the law, Senate rules, and tradition?  Do they have the fortitude to follow through no matter how vile the Democrats get? 

This isn't the time to reach across the aisle.  Democrats have declared war using every tool at their disposal — including lying, cheating, and violence.  They plan to burn it down, go nuclear, "bring a bazooka to the GOP's gun fight," "threaten massive retaliation," and "get ready to rumble."  And this just from David Corn at Mother Jones. 

Corn is right about one thing: this is about power.  Right now, Republicans legitimately control the levers of power when it comes to filling a Supreme Court vacancy.  They must not flinch in fulfilling their promises to those who put them in office expressly to appoint a conservative Supreme Court justice. 

Forgotten deplorables, and working and middle-class families struggling for an America that is great again, will not suffer another betrayal by arrogant, lily-livered RINOs.  Senate leadership must not allow them to spurn the will of the people.  Thus, waiting until after the election is not a viable choice — the risk of losing this opportunity is too high.  Our only course of action is to fill the vacancy ASAP, while we have the power, securing the appointment should we lose on November 3. 

If we do not confirm because too many Republican senators side with the Democrats, and we get clobbered on election day, their legacy will be a Republic held hostage by one-party rule as Democrats expand and stack the Supreme Court, destroy the filibuster, and gain four more Democrat senators by making D.C. and Puerto Rico states.  They will be responsible for relegating conservatives, the religiously observant, and those with a traditional outlook on life to new levels of oppression at the hands of our Democrat overlords, who will not be as indulgent of us as we have been of them.