Jonathan Chait notes that the Senate Republicans who promised to never, never, never change their stance on not giving Obama's Supreme Court nominee a hearing or vote are now quietly changing it. The new stance seems to be that if Hillary wins in November, they will quickly confirm Merrick Garland rather than allow Madame President to nominate someone they'll like a lot less. So much for the firm conviction that the choice must be left up to the next president.
But it gets me to wondering: Let's say it's three weeks before Election Day, Hillary's ahead in the polls and Obama announces, "Well, they said I shouldn't nominate anyone if I was a lame duck…and I will be one once the next president is elected. So I'll be withdrawing Mr. Garland's nomination on November 8." What will they do then? I suppose it'll depend on what the odds are of a Democratic dominance in both the White House and the Senate.
I also want to say that I have no idea how good a Supreme Court Justice the man would be. But just for allowing the President to place his name in consideration in this situation, Merrick Garland is a brave, brave man. In fact, if I were a Republican, I'd probably smear him by saying, "Anyone who would accept that nomination and allow us to slander him and dig up every bit of dirt we can about him and distort his record like we will is not demonstrating that he has very good powers of judgment."
Back to work…