# The way things are looking why isn't the GOP scrambling to approve SCOTUS nominee Merrick Garland? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 15, 2016, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-way-things-are-looking-why-isnt-the-gop-scrambling-to-approve-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland/757443 "2016-06-15T17:55:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-way-things-are-looking-why-isnt-the-gop-scrambling-to-approve-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland/757443/1 "2016-06-15T17:55:43Z")
Trump is apparently dedicated becoming a literal human garbage fire which does not bode well for his POTUS chances. Hillary as POTUS is not likely to nominate someone MORE conservative than Garland who is generally corporation friendly. So what’s the long game here? It just seems like they are just setting themselves up for a SCOTUS beatdown especially if Ginsberg and Breyer retire. ---
**Author:** ![Crybaby\_Boobie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crybaby_boobie/32/545_2.png) [@Crybaby\_Boobie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crybaby_Boobie)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-way-things-are-looking-why-isnt-the-gop-scrambling-to-approve-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland/757443/2 "2016-06-15T17:57:50Z")
It seems to me because SC appointments are still a good way to make sure the base votes for Republican senators. They can still block anyone forever if they keep the senate. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-way-things-are-looking-why-isnt-the-gop-scrambling-to-approve-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland/757443/3 "2016-06-15T18:10:48Z")
Because they are not very smart. Even if this strategy “worked”, it’s terrible because of the precedent it sets. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-way-things-are-looking-why-isnt-the-gop-scrambling-to-approve-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland/757443/4 "2016-06-15T18:24:53Z")
Because no individual senator actually cares what happens with Garland, only what their reelection looks like. If Senator X continues to obstruct, he gets points with his constituents, even if the approach backfires spectacularly when a more liberal justice ends up with the seat. If Senator X relents, his constituents vote him out for being a RINO, even if the approach ends up with a more moderate justice in the seat. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-way-things-are-looking-why-isnt-the-gop-scrambling-to-approve-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland/757443/5 "2016-06-15T21:45:01Z")
For them to move on Garland is for them to admit that Trump is toast and that Hillary’s replacement has a chance to be far worse… while still passing. Therefore, if you see the GOP start to take action to have hearings, it’s a strong indicator that they’re giving up on Trump and a slight indicator that they may be worried about their ability to impede a more liberal nominee. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2016, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-way-things-are-looking-why-isnt-the-gop-scrambling-to-approve-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland/757443/6 "2016-06-20T14:25:53Z")
It was mentioned in another thread but I thought it would be appropriate to bump this one. So a rumour, denied by his wife on facebook, is now being floated that Clarence Thomas is thinking of stepping down after the election. Seems a tad unbelievable that he would let that slip out right now but if enough Republican Senators do believe it, will that be the prodding they need to confirm Garland? > **[Wife of Clarence Thomas dismisses justice's retirement talk as 'bogus'](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wife-of-clarence-thomas-dismisses-justices-retirement-talk-as-bogus)** > > Justice Clarence Thomas, a reliable conservative vote on the Supreme Court, is mulling retirement after the presidential election, according to court watchers. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2016, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-way-things-are-looking-why-isnt-the-gop-scrambling-to-approve-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland/757443/7 "2016-06-20T14:30:13Z")
No point in doing so until after HRC wins. Just in case. I’m pretty confident Obama is not going to withdraw the nomination after the election. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2016, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-way-things-are-looking-why-isnt-the-gop-scrambling-to-approve-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland/757443/8 "2016-06-20T14:36:54Z")
I guess that depends on whether the Senators are just as confidently predicting Obama won’t withdraw it. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2016, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-way-things-are-looking-why-isnt-the-gop-scrambling-to-approve-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland/757443/9 "2016-06-20T15:25:37Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No point in doing so until after HRC wins. Just in case. I’m pretty confident Obama is not going to withdraw the nomination after the election. Well, he says he’s not, and he knows they say he won’t, and they know they’re not, and they know he says they say he knows they’re not, and . . . Anyway, after the election is, in my opinion, entirely the appropriate time to defer to the next president. We’ll just have to wait and see. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2016, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-way-things-are-looking-why-isnt-the-gop-scrambling-to-approve-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland/757443/10 "2016-06-20T15:34:25Z")
There are some rumblings now that Clarence Thomas is planning on retiring after the election. If that’s true, I can’t see the GOP standing firm on Garland and risk two picks going to HRC with no possible excuses about the will of the people. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2016, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-way-things-are-looking-why-isnt-the-gop-scrambling-to-approve-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland/757443/11 "2016-06-20T15:38:38Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > It was mentioned in another thread but I thought it would be appropriate to bump this one. > > So a rumour, denied by his wife on facebook, is now being floated that Clarence Thomas is thinking of stepping down after the election. Seems a tad unbelievable that he would let that slip out right now but if enough Republican Senators do believe it, will that be the prodding they need to confirm Garland? > [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/thomas-may-be-next-to-exit-supreme-court/article/2594317](http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/thomas-may-be-next-to-exit-supreme-court/article/2594317) Yeah, I saw that too. It would be a hell of thing if the justices went Reagan 1 Bush I 0 Clinton 2 Bush II 2 Obama 3 Clinton II 1 That’d make it 6-3 even without Kennedy resigning. If he did it would make Roberts and Alito essentially irrelevant on the court for 20 years or more unless they become _ **very** _ persuasive. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2016, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-way-things-are-looking-why-isnt-the-gop-scrambling-to-approve-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland/757443/12 "2016-06-20T15:40:00Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > Because no individual senator actually cares what happens with Garland, only what their reelection looks like. If Senator X continues to obstruct, he gets points with his constituents, even if the approach backfires spectacularly when a more liberal justice ends up with the seat. If Senator X relents, his constituents vote him out for being a RINO, even if the approach ends up with a more moderate justice in the seat. I agree. But you could rephrase it this way: Because no individual senator actually cares what happens with Garland,\* the welfare of the nation, or even what’s best for his party\*, only what their reelection looks like. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2016, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-way-things-are-looking-why-isnt-the-gop-scrambling-to-approve-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland/757443/13 "2016-06-20T18:36:42Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Because they are not very smart. Even if this strategy “worked”, it’s terrible because of the precedent it sets. 100% this. Pres. Obama has every right to have his nominee voted on. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2016, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-way-things-are-looking-why-isnt-the-gop-scrambling-to-approve-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland/757443/14 "2016-06-20T18:50:05Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Yeah, I saw that too. It would be a hell of thing if the justices went > > Reagan 1 > Bush I 0 > Clinton 2 > Bush II 2 > Obama 3 > Clinton II 1 > > That’d make it 6-3 even without Kennedy resigning. If he did it would make Roberts and Alito essentially irrelevant on the court for 20 years or more unless they become _ **very** _ persuasive. It’ll probably be Clinton at least 2, I doubt that Ruth Bader Gingsburg is going to hold out until age 87, if there is a Dem in the white house. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2016, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-way-things-are-looking-why-isnt-the-gop-scrambling-to-approve-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland/757443/15 "2016-06-20T19:03:20Z")
That’d still leave it 7-2, however. RBG is already a Clinton appointee. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2016, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-way-things-are-looking-why-isnt-the-gop-scrambling-to-approve-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland/757443/16 "2016-06-20T20:14:59Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > That’d still leave it 7-2, however. RBG is already a Clinton appointee. That’s “The Notorious RBG” to you, sonny! ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-way-things-are-looking-why-isnt-the-gop-scrambling-to-approve-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland/757443/17 "2016-06-21T21:33:13Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > For them to move on Garland is for them to admit that Trump is toast and that Hillary’s replacement has a chance to be far worse… while still passing. Yea, they dug in so hard against moving an Obama nomination forward, that at this point abandoning the position would be seen as basically admitting they either think Trump is doomed or likely to pick someone worse, from their perspective, than Merrick. Since the GOP isn’t ready (yet) to admit that Trump is doomed, they’re stuck with their former strategy. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2016, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-way-things-are-looking-why-isnt-the-gop-scrambling-to-approve-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland/757443/18 "2016-06-24T04:25:18Z")
> [@astro](#): > > Trump is apparently dedicated becoming a literal human garbage fire which does not bode well for his POTUS chances. Hillary as POTUS is not likely to nominate someone MORE conservative than Garland who is generally corporation friendly. > > So what’s the long game here? It just seems like they are just setting themselves up for a SCOTUS beatdown especially if Ginsberg and Breyer retire. Trump is a a metaphorical human garbage fire, which is a sure winner in Presidential election except against a literal literal human garbage fire. And he will be a weak President they can push around. He’s already promised to nominate super-ideological justices; one was pro-_Lochner!_ They’re in the catbird seat, unless Hillary is indicted (almost a sure win for the Democrats) or sets herself on fire (can’t lose). ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2016, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-way-things-are-looking-why-isnt-the-gop-scrambling-to-approve-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland/757443/19 "2016-06-24T04:51:30Z")
GOP still has down ticket races. Their base lives in a reality where Trump is winning. Best not to be the one to pop that bubble. If they vote on an Obama nominee they put themselves at risk. ---
**Author:** ![Oly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/oly/32/8255_2.png) [@Oly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oly)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2016, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-way-things-are-looking-why-isnt-the-gop-scrambling-to-approve-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland/757443/20 "2016-06-25T16:29:47Z")
I concur with the OP. The [Pakled](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WmGvYDLsj4) Repubs should git while the gittin’s good. When she wins Hill’s likely to yank Garland and, who knows, nominate Satan himself, or worse, Obama. After all he is a “constitutional law professor”, and Nobel laureate to boot! And with Tronald Dump’s potential down ballot blowback, it’s even money the Bench could be Baracked. Wouldn’t that be a fine howdoyoudo! [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-way-things-are-looking-why-isnt-the-gop-scrambling-to-approve-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland/757443.md?page=2)