Hillary might not stand by Judge Garland: Hillary Clinton refuses to commit to Merrick Garland as her Supreme Court pick
At face value: she wants to keep her options open.
Inside baseball: this is a ploy to make it more likely the GOP-controlled Senate will confirm him between Nov. 8 and Jan. 20, to avoid a “worse” nominee from her.
I lean towards the latter interpretation.
Well, you would, wouldn’t you? 
Clinton making a different selection has always been a possibility. It’s also possible that Obama will withdraw the nomination after the election. It’s also possible that a Democratic Senate will approve Garland in January. We’ll see.
Does today’s revelation by John McCain change anyone’s odds-making on this topic?
So much for the claim, earlier this year, that they were only refusing to consider Garland so that the American people could weigh in on this incredibly important issue.
Surely Obama’s a lock for the nomination when Clinton wins?
How is that a surely? He has’t even been a member of the bar for about 10 years. He worked on about 30 cases total in his career and taught a couple of classes a year as a part time professor. I know there are no specific constitutional qualifications for the Supreme Court but shouldn’t it be more than he did a little bit of lawyering once?
SCOTUS cases have less lawyering than you might imagine. All of their cases are deciding constitutional issues, a topic Obama taught at University of Chicago Law School.
Historically there were many non-judges (IIRC, including ex-Presidents and professorial types) that were appointed to the SCOTUS. It’s only recently that they’ve all come from the ranks of lower court judges.
I can’t imagine that Obama would be willing to be endlessly grilled by Republican Senators as part of the confirmation process, mere weeks after leaving office.
I agree generally. However, the only former President that I recall getting on the court was Taft, who had a long history which included time as U.S. Solicitor General and on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (and before that, Ohio state trial court). He also taught law at Yale for about 7 years. He wasn’t the typical “politician.”
Well, McCain purports to be speaking for others, but as far as I can tell he’s only speaking for himself. But in any event, it’s not like we didn’t know this already. Not a single person genuinely believed that the GOP was taking a principled stand against lame duck judicial nominations.
The GOP needs to confirm Garland ASAP. Don’t wait until the election. The GOP may not control the House afterwards.
Hillary will appoint someone much worse. Grab Garland while they can.
I will undoubtedly oppose any judicial nominee that a President H. Clinton would propose.
But elections have consequences. And one consequence of winning the White House is that you get to nominate justices, who should be rejected only on genuine qualification grounds.
So I oppose, and am saddened, by Senator McCain’s statement.
BUt there’s a bit of shadenfraude as well, because Democrats blocked the very qualified Robert Bork. It needs to stop, and I acknowledge the GOP is the more guilty party in recent times… but of course, this scenario can onky happenb when the Senate and the White House are split.
Quite true. Obama barely practiced law. He’s named in 30 cases total. His teaching career consisted of teaching part time. Harvard Law review does not make you qualified as a justice.
And that trend will continue. Obama will rightly be seen as one of the least qualified potential justices in modern history. And of course he has very public political opinions on legal issues. The only way he could get through is if the dems have a super majority in the Senate. And even then it will backfire down the road. Besides, he can leave the presidency and make 200k as a justice or work part time doing personal appearances and make millions.
Clinton should nominate Michelle Obama. 
I don’t think Obama would want the job. Former POTUS is a pretty good gig.
Except it was debated and voted on.
The House plays no role in nominations to SCOTUS.
He had 8 years of the hardest job imaginable. Sitting back and being an elder statesman sounds pretty good.
They will probably retain at least enough of the Senate to block cloture, and at this point, it’s hard to see why they wouldn’t just block Clinton’s nominees for four years.
One rule of for the pro forma session to not be a recess is that the Senate must allow to conduct business. If the Dems had some balls they would show up with Biden in the Chair and try to force the issue.