By most accounts Judge Garland is a moderate. He is also a little older at 63 years old. I think that under other circumstances this is someone that Republicans would be happy to confirm to the SCOTUS. How do you all think this will go?
Never mind. There is already a thread on this.
He could dig up Scalia, reanimate him, and nominate him and the Republicans would refuse to nominate him. There’s an outside chance they could schedule a hearing by say October but he won’t even get out of committee. Or more likely into committee.
I think they’ll hem and haw for a while – weeks and maybe even months, but they’ll eventually hold a hearing and a vote.
Here’s an article about Garland and his background -
I’m especially fond of this bit:
Well played, Mr. President.
Garland has nothing to lose by accepting the nomination, whether it proceeds or not. He already works and lives in Washington, and there is no downside or even inconvenience to him.
McConnell, Grassley, et al. now have to claim they want Donald Trump to make the nomination. 
I dunno - the Republicans pre-emptively painted themselves into a corner by already announcing they wont consider anyone Obama nominates. If they back down and consider Garland, they look like fools. If they hold tight and don’t consider Garland, they remain looking like fools.
So they have a choice about which kind of fool they want to look like: ones who get better, or ones who don’t.
IMHO the Republicans should make a few more speeches and then decide that in the interests of national harmony (or some other BS reasons) they’ve decided to hold a vote after all. Then let the guy get confirmed.
At this point, with Trump’s chances at the nomination looking good, the Republican chances at holding the Senate are looking correspondingly bad. And if they lose the presidency and the Senate, they will wish they had another chance at Garland.
They’ll probably wait to see if Trump’s support inside the party strengthens or weakens before deciding.
No worries - yours ended up getting the comments.
This seems like a shrewd choice - if Congress blocks, they look awful and an elected Clinton will go more liberal. If a hearing proceeds, they look silly and more like the owners of all the obstructionism.
::your move::
President Clinton will especially go more liberal with her own nomination with a Democratic-controlled Senate, which is looking even likelier today. If the GOP Senators come to realize their *real *options are the moderate Garland and a progressive like, say, Goodwin Liu, with the contingency being Trump’s choice of some other whacko, why, they’re good enough pols to come up with a pretext for changing their minds.
Very well played indeed, Mr President. Just last week, Orrin Hatch said:
BOOM. The ball is back in your court and about to smack you in the face, Senator.
At least doorhinge will be happy, as I know the amount of time Obama was taking to select a nominee was a particular concern.
It was just a month, in an unexpected situation. That’s pretty normal.
Republicans will obstruct until Clinton and enough Dem senate candidates win in November and then scramble to confirm before they lose the Senate and Clinton nominates Karl Marx.
Hatch needs to remember “Loose lips sink ships.” And political grandstanding.
I wanted Sri Srinivasan, but that was solely because it would have been nice to have an Indian on SCOTUS. Garland is probably the most qualified choice out there, and because the DC Circuit spends so much time on government cases he doesn’t have any controversial opinions floating out there on social policy.
Still, I think Obama missed an opportunity when he didn’t nominate one of his own prior appellate nominees. I would have been fun to watch the GOP Senators try to explain why they couldn’t approve a SCOTUS nominee who had been confirmed to the circuit bench 100-0.
If I were a senator, I would vote to confirm.
A 25 year old Karl Marx who has personally had an abortion.
Wouldn’t that be Karla Marx?