How would you vote on Merrick Garland's nomination?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Aye. Not a fan by any means and I'm disappointed that, out of such a good bunch, Obama chose one of the worst (though that might turn out to be a good thing - if the Senate was going to shoot down any nominee, then it will give Hillary the excuse to nominate someone like Jane Kelly instead), but I believe that the standard to reject a judicial appointment, especially for ideological reasons, should be very high.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Nay on the basis of his gun record

You mean voting to rehear a case without taking a position on its merits?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A judge can't work to remove Citizens United, the Supreme Court doesn't work like this. As much as I hate Citizens people still need to understand how it works

Pssh, facts! Who needs 'em? I've got enough of bluster and an army of talk radio hosts to fend off you corporate shills with your "evidence" and your "informed opinions" indefinitely!

Precisely why Garland should not be confirmed. This is a move by both the White House and Congress to rally their bases. If anyone had any respect for the unity of America, Ben Chandler or Tom Campbell or another Blue Dog/Main Streeter would be sailing to the SCOTUS.

Are you suggesting that Garland is some sort of divisive liberal or Democratic hack? Really? Because that is not one of the problems with him. Is this the narrative that's going to be pushed? Really?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

'We must honor Scalia and his love of intellectual combat and zest for blood in the ideological water by replacing him with someone other than Garland, who embodies the worst of jurisprudential moderate heroism' is a decent argument, actually.