Would replacing Ginsburg really realign the court the way conservatives want?

Some on the left are already pushing for an expansion of the USSC if Ginsburg is replaced during this term

Herein lies the bigger issue. Politics have become so much about pettiness, partisanship, gamesmanship, and childishness that there is no limits to what might happen in the future. It's no secret that many on the left feel that if they were to win back the Presidency and the Senate, that the first order of business would be to remove the filibuster and simply spend at least the next two years rewriting every law on the books. 

Obviously, if Trump were to be successful in getting Ginsburg replaced, the idea of "expanding and packing the court" would come into play. Not only could even a 50-50 majority by Vice Presidential deciding vote successfully pass a new law that expanded the court to the liberal's liking, but they could then could also try to write laws that make it more difficult for the next majority to change that existing law. 

The number already being floated would be to add four or even six new Justices, which would bring the court either to 13 or 15. This could invariably include very young liberal justices which would throw the weight of the court in favor of liberals by as much as a  9-5-1 split. This would, of course, stay in place until the GOP held the Presidency and both chambers of congress, when they would no doubt repack it with more and more Justices, which would then be repacked when Democrats were back in control, until the concept of a Supreme Court becomes almost nonsensical. 

But herein lies the deeper rub. The idea of getting rid of the filibuster and packing the courts might be in play even if the Ginsburg seat is still open. If Democrats win back the Presidency and the Senate, there will still be calls to pack the court, perhaps as payback for the Scalia opening and the Merrick Garland nomination sitting on ice. At that point as few as two more seats would all that would be needed to regain the majority. 

The last time I checked the polling, the American public neither wanted  the Senate to do away with the filibuster or to change the number of Justices on the USSC. But these are the sort of public sentiments that power hungry politicians ignore. 

That being said, there will be an fairly strong media sentiment "against" filling the Ginsburg seat this close to an election. The GOP will be cast as power hungry simply by attempting to fill the seat. However, if the President were to make a nomination, then we have a situation where it's not just an opening, but it's a person. Amy Coney Barrett (or whoever) becomes the conservative version of Merrick Garland (the potential Justice waiting on the election results). Once a real person is involved, we will see how the actual voting public reacts. They were very supportive of the idea of holding hearings for Garland, so we will see if how the electorate wants this played. 

I see no issue with the President making a nomination so that his cards are on the table and people know which Judge is in line for that spot. It might be just as prudent for Biden to put his cards on the table and unofficially announce a potential nominee. Then we have a concrete, rather than abstract choice, even if we don't see hearings or a vote.

Lastly, there will also be some strong arguments that given the assumption that this elections will eventually be determined by the courts, that having less than a full court puts them at a working disadvantage. It would be one thing to allow the courts to decide the election, but it's entirely another to have them working short handed with the real chance of being deadlocked 4-4 on a most important decision, which could be legally and fundamentally devastating if we have split circuit court decisions on important issues that could not be affectively resolved.  

If the GOP has a case to make for filling the seat, the need to avoid a possible 4-4 split is that case. The idea of watching parts of the country fall under competing Circuit rulings and deciding their elections differently might be a potential problem much bigger than the idea of filling a vacancy too close to an election.