The “advise and consent” clause.
Of course they are. They’re part of the party establishment.
Just throwing this out there…Is there a chance that Obama nominated a middle-of-the-road centrist because he thinks that’s the way the SCOTUS should be?
Could be, Obama’s a pretty moderate president. He still may have the taint of having tried to work with the GOP early in his presidency. I wished he’d have nominated someone more liberal, but I’m sure President Clinton will get to replace RBG and maybe god will do us a favor and kill Thomas too 
That wouldn’t explain Kagan and Sotomayor.
As the article states, it’s more like a “Biden observation”, and at any rate, he referred to a nomination during the summer of a president’s last year in office. Is March “the summer” now?
If you can get God to intervene, please ask Him to start with Alito.
Say what you want while you can say it. The clock is running down on so-called gun rights.
Tick, tick, tick…
They knew it when they vowed to make him a one-term president. And they’re still trying to make him a one-term president, bless their stubborn little souls.
Exactly. Obama is trying to put forth something of a consensus candidate. I doubt Garland would have been his choice under other circumstances (as evidenced by the two times Obama didn’t ultimately pick him).
Clinton, most likely, will want someone younger for one thing.
The part you quoted from **doorhinge’s **post was entirely factually correct. Merrick voted to rehear en banc. Whatever motivated this vote, we know for a fact that if en banc was granted, the 2-1 circuit panel decision would have been wiped away. There may be many reasons why Merrick voted in favor of en banc - but not all are equally likely. Do you think you can infer literally nothing from his vote?
Well, it was worth a shot.
Although, not willing to let this go just yet, with the court apparently balanced along partisan lines now, maybe he thinks a centrist is the ideal pick. A polarized court has come to be accepted as normal, but considering its original intent of objectivity, isn’t it making [del]baby Jesus[/del] Lady Justice cry?
Hey, maybe the Turtle does finally believe in human caused global warming… 
Seriously, here in Arizona we did break records for winter temperatures and Spring is turning to early summer. We really need to get rid of all congress critters that want to stop the EPA regarding emissions rules
This struck me watching the February 13th debate. Not one of the Republican candidates ever uttered the phrase “President Obama”. They would mention him by name, but never used his title.
My long-winded two cents:
The Supreme Court is the one institution with the power to move us past constitutional crises that could blow apart our political system—from a presidential election thrown into chaos to congress exercising some kind of unprecedented power in a national emergency. Its power to do this does not come from its control of an army or its power over spending. It comes from one place: its credibility.
The Court’s credibility is ebbing, as it is increasingly considered just another place for partisan politics. It used to be an institution as well-respected as the military. Now the military is roughly twice as respected. That’s a bad trend for a democratic country. Meanwhile, the importance of the Court as bulwark of constitutional stability is more important than ever. The chances of a constitutional crisis escalate with every passing year, as we witness the consequences of the two parties becoming ideological poles.
If President Trump were to ignore the Court, I think it’s possible, likely even, that the GOP would try to impeach him. But it might depend on the issue. And if there’s another decade of credibility loss, who knows? I think it’s something we should be legitimately scared of when thinking of the big picture over the coming decades as our institutions are overtaken by the growing shadow of political polarization.
It could be that Obama picked Garland because he’s genuinely the best match for Obama’s views, or because he knows the GOP won’t relent and he wanted to pick the most conservative plausible option to stick it to them. Neither of those strike me as likely. I think Obama is more liberal than Garland, and I think other picks would have been more politically damaging.
So, maybe, this pick is Obama’s attempt to step back from the brink and try to shore up the Court’s credibility. To ratchet down, however marginally, the degree to which the Court is a partisan football.
If I’m right, then when Hillary wins in November he won’t withdraw Garland. Instead, Garland will be confirmed. And maybe the Supreme Court will survive as an institution for a little bit longer than, say, the historical tradition of giving the President’s Supreme Court nominees a fair hearing.
So, if we accept everything the Repubs say, what is the latest time in a President’s 2d term that he/she gets to be president?
When might Scalia have died, that they would have at least deigned to greet a nominee? December 31, 2015?
October 31, 2015? (More than a year before the election)
Some earlier date?
Are they tying their position to the Kennedy nomination? Would they say that is the new bar? Or would they push that back should they perceive it to be to their advantage?
When Clinton is elected, I would not be at all surprised to hear them argue that she should not put forward a Supreme Court nomination in her first year, because “it’s too early”
Mitch McConnell, February 10th, 2017:
As the last year has shown, the Supreme Court functions just fine with eight justices. It would be a waste of taxpayer money to needlessly appoint a ninth justice.
Couldn’t the republicans save face by saying Obama played our card and confirm Garland?
Could have, but they doubled down this morning.
Heck, if it’s that important for The People to have a voice, let Obama run for a third term.
Do not give me nightmares. As much as I dislike Hillary Clinton, I will be doing a happy dance if Obama hands over the reins of power to her. He is insufferable without the competence to justfy my tolerance, IMO. He can’t be gone soon enough. Sanders would be a better successor as well.