In the last hour or so, six different people have sent me what is essentially the same message. Here's the version I got from Mike Martin…
You wrote, "That's what politics in this country has become. The next time a Supreme Court seat has to be filled, most Democrats want the person who will most reliably vote as per the Democratic line and most Republicans want the person who is guaranteed to always vote with the G.O.P." I have to disagree with this statement as it falls into the "both sides" trap.
If you look at the last pick for the Supreme Court that Obama made, that was ignored by the Republican Senate, Merrick Garland was by all accounts the kind of centrist that you call for and most Democrats (myself included) would have been very happy to have such a centrist on the Supreme Court. We don't want a left wing dictatorship. We just want a fair shake.
I'm going to stand by what I said. I think most Democrats (myself included) would like folks like Garland on the Supreme Court if — and it's a big "if" — the Republicans weren't so determined to put men like Bret Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas on the court. This is one of those "if they'll stop it, we'll stop it" confrontations.
It used to be that we didn't want ideologues. Heck, it used to be so non-confrontational that the Senate confirmed Supreme Court nominees by voice votes. It's quite arguable how and when that changed but it did change and now we have Justices who just squeak by and every vote is fought-over. Kavanaugh got in, 50-48.
I submit to you that Obama nominated Merrick Garland because facing the kind of Senate that would have to confirm his nominee, the President decided that Garland had a slim chance, whereas anyone more Liberal would have had no chance whatsoever. Also, to reject Garland would mean that a lot of Republican Senators who in the past had supported him and said he was a good man would have had to reverse themselves. There might still have been a Republican or two who would be embarrassed to do that.
If Obama had had a Democratic senate, he'd have nominated someone more Liberal, if only to balance against the next right-wing nominee we'd get whenever Republicans seized the White House. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. And I think the one way to stop this kind of game would be to change the rules so every nominee had to be satisfactory enough to the minority party that he or she could be confirmed by two-thirds. Which will never happen.