But at the very least, by choosing Garland, Obama injected some new lines for the GOP to quibble over. There is currently dissension among the ranks over meeting with Garland, with at least a half a dozen Republicans saying they would. There is also intra-party disagreement over whether Republicans should consider Garland’s nomination in a lame duck session if a Democrat wins the White House.
Republican Sen. Jeff Flake (AZ), who sits on the Judiciary Committee, laid out the logic.
“If we come to a point where we’ve lost the election, and we can get a centrist like Garland in there as opposed to someone like Hillary Clinton might appoint, then I’d go for it,” Flake said.
Obviously, if Clinton wins and has a good Senate majority, Obama will withdraw the nomination so Clinton can nominate a younger, more liberal judge.
Obama picked Garland because Grassley, Hatch, Graham and any other Senator with at least a few neurons firing in the frontal portion of their brains knows that Garland is as good as they’ll ever get from a Democrat. The existence of Garland puts tremendous pressure on McConnell’s strategy of total obstruction, as does the existence of Trump, since Grassley, Hatch, et. al. think that Trump is a stone loser who may also lose them the Senate. The question remaining is how many “do your job” ads Kelly Ayotte, Mark Kirk, Ron Johnson and the rest of the weak Republicans can stand to watch before they will cave.
boatboy_srq
As neat a trap for the GOTea as we could wish for.
RareSanity
I’m not altogether sure about the “technical” definition of irony, but by my personal one, the irony that the same people Yertle is trying to placate, being the ones voting for Trump in the first place is just so satisfying.
Mary
I don’t think Jeff Flake was supposed to say that out loud.
Steve from Antioch
You can make an argument that doing so would be a good gaming strategy, but it isn’t “obvious” that Obama “will” do this.
Obama is, fundamentally, a moderate and he has respect for the institutions and processes of government. Yanking Garland’s nomination would confirm that Obama hadn’t originally nominated him in good faith and I am not sure Obama would do that.
SoupCatcher
Ron Johnson could get a primary challenge from the right as late as June 1 (June 10th for Kelly Ayotte). My guess is that they are both more afraid of that then the general election. I wonder if they change their tune after the candidate filing deadline passes.
PaulWartenberg2016
we really need to see every Senate seat challenged by Democrats this election cycle.
soledavid
I don’t know why folks keep thinking the Garland nomination is just a tactical move by Obama, or that he would withdraw the nomination if Hillary wins. That would be a dick move on a highly-regarded judge, totally foreign to Obama’s normal way of operating.
Mary
From the article:
Lindsey Graham is in a fight with someone.
hellslittlestangel
Does anyone really believe that Obama will wait for over seven months before withdrawing the nomination? I think he’d signal he’s about to pull the plug long before that, to maximize the pressure on Republicans. Besides, withdrawing the nomination after the election (which of course Clinton wins) would be an absolutely shitty thing to do (“Bye, Garland, thanks for being a patsy!”), which is not Obama’s style.
If Obama withdraws Garland’s name, it will be around the time of the Republican convention, when it will hurt them the most.
Mary
@SoupCatcher: This sounds right to me. I suspect we will see a reluctant confirmation after primary season is over.
moonbat
They will cave. Garland is the best they can hope for and purple state senators are getting beat up over this.
Hal
What does it mean to be a centrist with this current iteration of the Supreme Court? Given the conservative majority, anyone short of the reanimated corpse of Scalia is going to push the court left ward. Also, hasn’t the court more than a few justices that were supposed to be ideologically more conservative and turned out not to be? Hell, even if Garland is more conservative than desirable, it’s not like Hillary won’t have a vacancy or two to fill.
raven
@Mary: Yesterday he said he was his favorite pick for the court and he wouldn’t vote for himself right now!
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
Why is that obvious? Supposedly Garland has been on his list for a long time. Why would he give up his Constitutional responsibility to appoint a Justice?
I think you’re misreading Obama if you really believe that.
Hillary will have plenty of opportunities to appoint her own Justices given the ages of the ones presently on the SCOTUS.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
elm
@soledavid: Such a move could even cost Obama a third term.
scav
Didn’t Mark Kirk suddenly find his inside reasonable voice about when he figured out who’d his opponent be after the primary?
ETA or was he reasonable-curious earlier?
MattF
@soledavid: I agree. The point is that Obama is doing his job, nominating the person he thinks is the best candidate. The whole 11-dimensional chess thing is a red herring.
boatboy_srq
@soledavid: It’s really both. Garland is a respected, decent jurist, who just happens to have had (in earlier days) full-throated support from the same blowhards who are obstructing any and every nominee. Obama gets simultaneously a respectable SCOTUS choice and the worst possible dilemma for a group of well-placed wingnuts who still don’t understand the power of recorded statements.
Garland is an excellent choice. He’s no Sotomayor or RBG, but he doesn’t have to be: he just needs to be honest and less conservative than Breyer. He’s also someone Hatch, among others, has proposed by name for just such a position. And he meets all the superficial qualifications (namely white and male) that the Reichwing demands.
I don’t think anyone is viewing Garland’s nomination as solely a “tactical move”. But there are distinct qualities to his nomination (as opposed to most other potential candidates bandied about) that puts extra pressure on the Teahadi Senators. If they cave, we get a respectable SCOTUS justice and at least some of them risk losing a primary battle to retain their seats; if they continue resisting, the likelihood of both a more progressive second choice and a more approachable Senate (thanks in no small part to the unseating of the worst Teahadis in November) is far higher. The only risk here is a scorched earth campaign by the unseated Senators in the lame duck session, and that’s already baked into the calculus.
Humboldtblue
@soledavid:
Yup.
joel hanes
Why does everyone think that Obama will be the one to publicly withdraw ?
My guess is that, once the failure-to-confirm has set a new record for an open nomination (which IIRC is something around 100 days), Garland will announce “Apparently my nomination is too big a hurdle for our current Senate, and the extended delay in confirming a new Justice is hurting the Court and the nation. Accordingly, I am withdrawing as a candidate.”
zmulls
I’m with @soledad and @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet — I don’t believe Obama nominated Garland with the intent of yanking him when it seems convenient. Obama even tries to treat the GOP with respect, he’s not going to jerk around a respected jurist. Garland wants this, clearly, and Obama is not going to yell “Psych! I was just kidding!”
I think it’s likely that they confirm after it’s clear Hillary will win. But if they don’t…If the Senate adjourns at the end of the year, does that kill the nomination, or at least clear it from the calendar?
? Martin
Republican Votes Matter! (but nobody else’s do).
Eric U.
I suspect the choice was made with the consideration that it had a very good chance of going through. But the fact that the dem senate challengers in swing states have gone live with shaming ads this quickly says that there is some political calculation involved.
I don’t think Obama pulls the nomination unless Garland gets tired of being a rethug football
Peale
@soledavid: I agree. Look, I know due to our system in which campaigning for the next election starts the day the final votes are tallied that a second term president is a lame duck starting in January of his second term. But I don’t think Obama is going to pull the nomination proving that a president should be a lame duck. There is no “Biden Rule” and Obama probably doesn’t want to create one. The idea of the “Lame Duck” is just another rule put forward to stop Congress from working.
I can’t believe that when I was young I wanted to be a Senator someday. What a bunch of phonies with their made up “traditions” and supposedly iron clad “rules” that are basically excuses to quit working.
nominus
The GOP will move when it finally dawns on them that they are in a trap with no way out. Sooner or later they will figure out that there is no placating the mouth breathers who would threaten a primary. There is no way to explain to them that “Hey, we gotta confirm this one because the if we don’t Hillary will nominate Birkenstock DeCannabis and then we’re really screwed.” That kind of logic doesn’t fit on a Facebook post and no one on Fox is going to argue it. They will figure that they have to move and hope it gets forgotten when the next OMG-you-won’t-believe-what-Hillary-just-did story breaks.
jl
@boatboy_srq:
” I don’t think anyone is viewing Garland’s nomination as solely a “tactical move”. ”
Some parts of corporate media and their political pundit class seem to view everything, the very meaning of existence, as tactical moves.
Kylroy
@SoupCatcher: Ron Johnson is currently getting clobbered in the general polling, because Feingold is looking to get his Senate seat back. If Johnson’s more afraid of being primaried on the right in purple Wisconsin, he’s not paying attention.
Jeffro
I’m surprised Obama hasn’t spelled it out for them: you don’t have to play games or stress about any of this, Senators, if you’d just have some principles – one of which should be, #DoYourJob. No fuss, no worries about Hillz, no what-if lame-duck scenarios.
Just.
Do.
Your.
Job.
Roger Moore
@Eric U.:
I don’t think it says that. Those ads were going to go up as long as the Republicans kept obstructing the nominee, no matter who it was. So unless you’re going to classify making a nomination rather than caving to Republican demands as a political calculation, I don’t think the ads prove anything.
phantomist
From press sec yesterday:
“Stalling his nomination and preventing him from serving on the Supreme Court at the beginning of the next term would be obstruction on a scale that is unprecedented in the last 40 years or so.”
__
The next term starts in early Oct. I would guess that this is the deadline on Garland’s appointment.
hellslittlestangel
@Kylroy: Good point. Johnson would be a fool to worry more about a primary challenge than about Feingold …
But, then … have you ever heard Johnson talk?
Jeffro
@Peale:
The institution itself really does need to go (and not just because the GOP is currently running it).
Make all Representatives serve four-year terms (concurrent with Presidential elections) and get rid of the Senate, “holds” and filibusters and over-represented small states and preening Presidential wannabes and all.
Gelfling545
@soledavid: Exactly. The next president will have th opportunity to name at least one Supreme Court justice. The President made a good call here as the republicans won’t dare try to savage his reputation as they threatened to do. I also don’t believe they have stopped to consider just what sort of nominee they might get from a (gods forbid) president Trump.
jl
I do wonder how the duration thing will play out. If the GOP holds strong and does nothing at all, it will be kind of a limbo. What would be the reason for withdrawing the nomination? Would Obama nominate someone else, and who would it be?
I don’t view the Garland nomination as eleventy D chess. I think Obama thinks Garlands is his best shot at getting a confirmation that would improve the Court during his administration. And I think there are limitations to trying to think eleventy D chess when your opponents are likely to say and do anything, and no telling what rules they will make up for themselves next.
But after Obama is dicked with the way the GOP is trying to dick with this nomination, if Garland decides he has had enough BS, or for some reason Obama feels the keeping this nomination is creating serious problems, he will be put into some level of multi-D chess world, at least it will be perceived that way.
Pundits will spin infinite shades of ideological shading to argue that the next nominee is more conservative and “Obama CAVES!” or more liberal and “Obama playing chicken with the SCOTUS, bothsidesdoit!!”.
And what is BS and what is real will be impossible to tell, and we will all go stark ravingg mad before the election, no doubt.
Edit: I guess start of next court term would be an actual reality based thing, rather than hall-of-mirrors world kabuki BS that would rigger withdrawing the nomination. But then Obama would not be able to get his choice on court for pure BS reasons, which would be infuriating to him.
bemused
@Mary:
Oh poo, Lindsey. Republican leaders talking out of both sides of their mouths has never bothered the majority of their voters that I’ve noticed. Different story if Dems were doing it.
SatanicPanic
@soledavid: Yeah, I don’t think Obama would do that. There’s also the off chance that Obama likes Garland and wants him as a justice.
Punchy
@soledavid: Wouldn’t it also be a dick move to deny HRC her choice of SCOTUS pick?
Benw
If only Biden hadn’t said some words that could be taken out of context and Obama hadn’t been black, the poor Republican senators wouldn’t be backed into such a corner. It’s sad, really, what this WH has done to America.
jl
@Gelfling545: Judge Judy would be so bad?
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Jeffro: Disagree. I think the Senate serves a useful purpose.
To fix the House and Senate, I don’t think the length of terms have to be changed. There is an advantage of being able to throw the bums out after 2 years, and there’s an advantage of having institutional memory and people who don’t face an election the same time the President does.
I think:
1) Non-partisan redistricting and a rule to create “compact” districts. No more salamanders and the like.
2) Redistricting once every 10 years, after the Census results are known. No more of this GOP “change the boundaries whenever we get a majority” stuff.
3) Reform to the Filibuster/Cloture/Hold rules so that a single or small number of Senators can only hold (some) things up for 1 week. Otherwise, Majority Rule needs to hold (even when it comes to odious SCOTUS nominations). (If someone truly odious gets on the SCOTUS, there is always the option of impeachment.)
There’s probably more that’s needed (maybe being able to go around the Majority Leader/Speaker more often in certain cases), but I think those 3 things would do a lot.
Cheers,
Scott.
elm
I think Garland is a sincere and qualified nominee. I think Obama would be happy to seat him on the Supreme Court, I wouls also be happy with that outcome.
I think Obama will fight like hell for him, for a reasonable span of time.
I think Obama will not allow the GOP to spend 7.5 months stalling and dicking around on Garland’s nomination and then allow them to confirm him after they have already lost the Presidency and possibly control of the Senate.
If they haven’t held hearings by September, I’d expect Garland to withdraw himself from consideration and for Obama to make a second nomination.
I also think Garland is the best offer the GOP is ever going to get. If they want to accept that offer, they’d better do it sooner rather than later.
Mnemosyne
I’m still waiting for any of the Garland detractors to show me a decision that was “conservative” other than that Guantanamo decision. Find me an anti-abortion decision, an anti-voting rights decision, or a pro-corporations decision. Otherwise, STFU with the He’s further right than Antonin Scalia! bullshit. Your personal hobbyhorse does not outweigh everything and everyone else.
Mary
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: Districts should be determined by some sort of algorithm. Otherwise there will always be allegations of partisanship.
Aunt Kathy
I’ll cop to having the naive heart of a fluffy little bunny, but I also don’t think Obama will withdraw Garland unless he wants to be withdrawn. The guy was just TOO emotional in the rose garden. There’s no way I could take that from him.
Also, I’ve got an abundance of minutes on my cell phone that I’ll never use, so this #DoYourJob thing is my new daily mission. I am calling the judiciary committee once a day, every day, until this thing is resolved, either which way. 202-224-5225. Join me, won’t you?
Miss Bianca
@Aunt Kathy:
Sounds like a plan!
Tom Q
Ok, something that occurred to me today that I hope soneone with a legal background could answer for me:
Should Garland be confirmed and take his seat sometime prior to next October, could it be possible some Democrats could challenge voter suppression laws and get emergency stays on them?
If that possibility is open, wouldn’t it offer a motive beyond the obvious for GOPers to delay his confirmation, even if they eventually knuckle under?
Roger Moore
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:
The Senate is still very anti-democratic, considering that Wyoming gets as many Senators as California does.
Poopyman
Has anyone asked The Donald who his pick for SCOTUS will be come January? I tend to think not because I’m sure I would have heard the GOPers having the vapors by now.
wenchacha
Is it possible that Hillary could win, still just eight at SCOTUS, and Repubs just decide to continue obstructing because they like it so much?
Tinare
I had a message on my home phone that I missed a call to join a live townhall with the President to discuss his pick of Garland and why he needs to be confirmed. It directed me to a website — weneednine.org. I think the plan is just to continually club Republican Senators over the head with the outright obstruction. Which is great.
Also, too, it may help us get rid of Pat Toomey in PA!
pseudonymous in nc
As I said in the earlier thread, Obama’s given every Dem senate candidate facing an incumbent GOPper their campaign strategy, and it’s the kind of “kick the bums out” campaign that the GOP have run against Dems too often. Deborah Ross only just packed away the party supplies from winning the NC primary, and she’s going after Richard Burr on it.
I don’t see it as a bait-and-switch from Obama: he’s nominated the unofficial next-in-line candidate, a moderate institutionalist. Far from this being Obama offering his compromise at the start of negotiations, you’re already seeing the GOP Senate caucus negotiating with itself in public, and that makes them all look weak and silly. The president is going through the expected stages of the process in a way that’s as unsurprising as it gets, and that makes the GOP senators’ behaviour stand out even more.
NonyNony
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:
Except for the changes to Senate rules (which should be done), all of that is way too complicated and too easily gamed. When I was younger I believed that a lot of changes like that would work, but these days I don’t. I would suggest a simpler set of changes:
a) House reps are in for 4 years, and have elections concurrent with the Presidential elections. While there may be some merit to the “throw the bums out” after 2 years cycle, in practice what happens is that we vote WAY TOO MUCH in this country. We are always having elections and people who work can’t show up to all of them and, just as importantly, don’t actually have the time to educate themselves about all of them. So to get an idea of the actual will of the people we need to have fewer elections where more people can show up. So that means 4 year terms concurrent with Presidential elections. (Also this would reduce the perpetual campaign mode to just a few years, which would help House members to actually have time to do a job rather than fundraise and reward politicians who want to work rather than just gladhand.)
b) Along with that, Senators serve for 8 years and have elections concurrent with every other Presidential election. We’re unlikely to get rid of the Senate, but we can at least make their election a referendum on how half of a state’s Senators are doing every election cycle. These changes would mean that there was always one national election every four years, and while jerrymandering would still be problematic at the state level, reducing the number of Federal elections that people have to participate in should improve participation. (If we could require states to hold their elections on the same cycle as the Feds that would help, but that would be something that would require changes at each individual state level.)
The nice thing about both of these two reforms is that they are basically cherries for the Representatives and Senators in power – lengthening their time in office can only benefit them individually. So it’s a Constitutional amendment that has a half a shot in hell of actually passing at the Federal level (you need a 2/3 majority in both houses to get a proposed amendment out to the states, so it better be something that benefits either both political parties or all of the individuals in those houses if you expect it to go anywhere).
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@Peale:
Not working is not the reason for all of the GOP’s black president rules – the GOP’s whole existence is to pull Obama over again and again for presidentin’ while black. The “not working” part is like the cop sitting in the cruiser while they pretend to do whatever job they’re pretending to do, to justify their racism.
NotMax
(emphasis added)
Say what, now?
Foolish doesn’t come within a light year of describing that sentence.
MattF
@wenchacha: But why stop there? Why not wait until there are no Justices left? Solves the ‘activist judge’ problem.
phantomist
@Poopyman:
Donald Trump ally Roger Stone said that Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano is “probably Trump’s number one pick for the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Keith G
Are you willing to wager a Happy Meal on that?
Presidents do not relinquish perogative or powers. I’m curious as to what is it about Obama’s personality or what he has displayed in the past that makes you think he will surrender his choice on this issue.
To do so first of all would be a kick in the nuts to Garland. Barack Obama is not that kind of person. Secondarily but still equally important I think is that Garland is Obama’s type of Justice. I think we got a bit lucky with Sotomayor and Kagan being a bit more liberal than would be the average likely choice of Barack Obama. A centrist like Garland is not someone that Obama would give up just to please Hillary or liberals, nor should he once he’s made the nomination.
Edited to say that I now see Not Max got to the same conclusion a bit earlier. It just ain’t gonna happen.
Frankensteinbeck
I heard the same ‘too centrist’ the last two times. Garland isn’t ‘liked by Republicans’, Garland is revered by the entire legal profession. Reality has a well-known liberal bias, and like Kagan and Sotomayor, when Garland is in place (I think McConnell will cave), he’ll turn out to be pleasantly liberal but also deeply committed to the law and the constitution – just like Obama.
elm
@wenchacha:
If they retain control of the Senate, that’s what I’d expect in that case. Control of the median vote of the Supreme Court is an enormous prize for the right wing. They will not give that up. If their voters think they’ve caved in on ever overturning Roe vs. Wade, they’ll all be primaried from the hard right.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Roger Moore: Sure. But it wasn’t intended to be democratic. It was intended to prevent the “masses” from running away with the government in the heat of the moment.
I think it serves a useful purpose.
As long as we continue to be a Union of States, having a place in the national government for the States to have an explicit voice seems to me to be sensible. I don’t think having the Senate turn into a glorified House (or doing away with it entirely) makes much sense – we’ve seen how much damage the House can do…
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
Tim C.
@Frankensteinbeck: This. The opposition is clearly tying itself in knots and all the GOP/Gun Nuts have is the usual strawmen. Bad news is that it doesn’t matter I think in this case. Just like with the presidential primary, there are simply no good options for purple state senators. If they cave, even after the primaries, they lose all support from the right wing nuts they need to win elections.
Smedley Darlington Prunebanks (formerly Mumphrey, et al.)
Wait, but, but, he can’t do that. He can’t do that! That wouldn’t be fair! He can’t put them in this awkward spot, and then, if Democrats win in the fall, take away their one hope for something they can claim from the wreckage, and give them the finger. Can he? I’m pretty sure that the Constitution says that if you nominate somebody to the Supreme Court, and then your party wins an election, you can’t pull your nominee and choose somebody you like better. That just isn’t fair. What would Senator McConnell think? What would the Republicans think? That’s just mean, and they would never do something mean like that. For shame!
retiredeng
@soledavid: Obama could quietly get Garland to withdraw on his own. Most probably assuring him that he’d be chosen again by Clinton. But it would be great to see the GOP Senators heads explode at the thought of a real left leaning judge getting picked instead.
Roger Moore
@wenchacha:
Absolutely. That’s only likely to work if the Republicans maintain control of the Senate, though; I don’t expect the filibuster on Supreme Court justices to survive if the Democrats win both the presidency and senate, especially if there is still an open seat that needs filling.
NotMax
@Keith G
You are spot on. Would add that such a timed, contingent withdrawal also validates the R’s ludicrous stance.
Smedley Darlington Prunebanks (formerly Mumphrey, et al.)
@srv:
Dude, you need to get in the game here. This shit is just sad. Is this really all you clowns have? Pitiful.
Patricia Kayden
@hellslittlestangel: How would that hurt them? Just curious. Republicans have little to lose by continuing their obstructionism against the Kenyan who has usurped the White House. I just don’t see any downside to them not considering/voting on Garland.
They shut down the government in 2013 and then flipped the Senate in 2014. That’s just how they roll.
My hope is that this SCOTUS nomination fight motivates our side to come out in November. Of course, Trump becoming President should be a big motivation factor as well.
Amir Khalid
@phantomist:
How fitting for the Donald to pick a TV pundit from Fox News instead of an actual judge.
Speaking of the Donald, Salon has this interesting tale of a near run-in between him and Keef from the Stones.
Tom Q
@Roger Moore: Completely agree. They already did it with regard to lower courts, and if a newly-chastened GOP — having been dealt a third straight presidential defeat and a loss of the Senate — still insist on playing the same tired game, the last of Dem resistance to filibuster-ousting should disappear.
Patricia Kayden
@Poopyman: Trump has already said who he would pick if he wins the election.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/13/donald_trump_just_proposed_diane_sykes_and_bill_pryor_for_the_supreme_court.html
dww44
@Hal: I’m in your corner and I am personally impressed with the nomination of Merrick Garland. As I’ve read elsewhere he truly is a merit pick and I’m genuinely proud that Obama picked someone who’s deserving of the nomination. I’m not at all convinced that Obama is playing another version of 11th dimensional chess. As he said in his remarks in the Rose Garden, this man was deserving, qualified, and widely respected across the political spectrum. All the same it is undeniably true that Garland was picked because he’s a centrist liberal that Senate Republicans can support and did so in the past.
I hope that Garland gets the seat and if that happens, just maybe this signals a a move away from selecting candidates for the court largely based on where the nominee falls on the political spectrum.. As Dahlia Lithwick said at Slate, this was a “presidential” pick.
Geeno
I don’t get why everyone talks about Garland like he’s some kind of naif. The guy’s been around and knows the score. There’s no doubt in my mind that all the various contingencies have been talked through with him, and he agreed to the plan knowing full well that this was no ordinary court appointment.
There’s probably an agreed drop dead date that if he hasn’t gotten his hearing, he’ll withdraw.
Princess
I think the minute senators like Flake and Hatch said they’d be open to a lame duck confirmation, thus destroying McConnell’s theory that not nominating this year was a matter of principle, the question has not been if they’d cave, but when.
MCA1
I don’t think you can actually decouple the politics from the decisionmaking here, at least to the extent that many of you upthread have mentioned that there’s a good possibility PBO sees Garland as his best chance to get someone satisfactory confirmed. That’s the very definition of a political calculation. That’s not supposed to be the standard by which he chooses a nominee, of course, but when playing with an opposition so obstinate as this one, which has effectively faced no electoral consequences for its outrageously radical tactics for the last 7+ years, it’s understandable. It’s possible Obama chose Garland for the old reasons – nominate the person you’d most like to see on the court, within some loose boundaries as to judicial philosophy (ie don’t put up a Bork). But as soon as we get to “best chance of confirmation” we’re talking about a politically driven determination. And in this instance, “best chance of confirmation” can reasonably be interpreted as “most likely to put the GOP’s nuts in a vice.” Ergo, a guy like Garland.
Roger Moore
@Patricia Kayden:
Josh Marshall at TPM had a good take on this: the Republicans have always carefully timed their worst obstructionism well away from elections. They didn’t pay a price in 2014 because they gave voters more than a year to get distracted by other stuff. Obstructionism during the heat of the campaign is unlikely to play as well with voters.
boatboy_srq
@srv: You mean the people’s right to be racist, sexist, slvt-shaming, queer-bashing ammosexual bigots?
MCA1
@boatboy_srq: Generally agreed, but I think he just needs to be less conservative than Kennedy, not Breyer, to move the needle significantly. Whether it’s Garland or Breyer who becomes the median justice, and therefore the swing vote, the result is basically the same.
A further result in either case could be that Kennedy, having now lost his late career relevance, soon retires. He’s been there 28 years and is about to turn 80. I could see him saying that’s a wrap, and in any event he’s not going to hold out another 8 years if Clinton’s a 2-termer. Replace him with another Garland type, assuming RBG retires replace her with someone similar to her, and that’s a huge reworking of the SC makeup in a short period without pushing so far left of center on any one appointment that Republicans can really justifiably complain.
bemused
@Amir Khalid:
We have Richards’ autobiography, Life, but he didn’t mention this episode. It wouldn’t be the only time Keith pulled a knife out so it may well be true. It will be interesting to see if Keith comments on the story.
pseudonymous in nc
@Roger Moore:
They’ve timed it so that it creates the conditions in which to fight “vote all the bums out” elections, which works especially well if the other party’s ostensibly running things and you’ve gerrymandered districts so that your people stick around.
But they’ve also timed it for the years when governing was meant to happen. American democracy is so dysfunctional (because of money in politics) that even years are essentially a legislative write-off, especially at the federal level, but shit’s supposed to get done in odd years. That mostly hasn’t happened since 2009.
Now Obama can show up and campaign for each of those Senate candidates in best all-out-of-fucks-to-give mode, a kind of farewell tour. What can the GOP do? Send out their presidential nominee? They’re not going to fill a hall if it’s Yertle rallying for Pat Toomey.
glory b
@Tinare: Late to the thread, but Toomey actually said he’d vote for Garland if a republican president nominated him, but not if Obama did. WTF?
melanophis
Personally, I hope that thru some machination Garland withdraws or is withdrawn, and the nomination falls to HRC with a flipped Dem-controlled Senate, and SHE NOMINATES BARACK OBAMA. Best of all possible worlds (BOAPW).
NotMax
@melanophis
Obama previously (and repeatedly) saying he has no desire to hold the position and would refuse such a nomination might put a teensy kink in your plan.
He’ll do more good over more years being outside of D.C. than being inside, in being one of one rather than one of nine.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
According to this study/chart Garland is as liberal as RBG. (Scroll down)
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/16/us/politics/garland-supreme-court-nomination.html?_r=0
If he’s as liberal as Ginsberg, what more you could you want. moreover, Ginsberg was 60 when appointed.
Sure, it would be better to have someone younger and a minority who can bring unrepresented experiences and points of view to the bench. But that said does anything think Ginsberg was a bad pick? If not, then what’s wrong with a Ginsberg ideological clone.