McConnell rules out confirming Garland in lame duck

[Bojack Horseman]

Congratulations on committing political suicide!

[Bojack Horseman]

Guys, do you seriously believe he would be confirmed during the lame duck session?

Too many senate conservatives would never vote for him.

If Democrats are on board, then all they need is 14 Republican votes, maybe a couple more if a handful of Democrats do not vote/vote no.

Strategically, it makes sense to try and ram through Garland if Clinton wins/they lose Senate in November. Why not rush to confirm him then instead of letting Clinton nominate a much younger, more liberal justice that will get confirmed? The only problem here is that Republicans essentially slammed the door in their own faces with not only the strategy they chose to pursue, but also it's sloppy execution as well.

At that point, Obama should definitely withdraw Garland and let Hillary appoint the next RBG to the court.

[Bojack Horseman]

At that point, Obama should definitely withdraw Garland and let Hillary appoint the next RBG to the court.

Yes, damn right. I can live with Garland, but personally, I want someone younger and more liberal. If Republicans are going to put reliable conservative justices on the bench, we should be putting on reliable liberals. It's not like Republicans want a moderate Supreme Court - They only want Democrats to nominate moderates.

Further, he's too old. Within 15 years or so, we will be back having a fight about this again. His age was a concession to Republicans in hope that they would be more open to a nominee that they can have a chance at replacing in 15 years instead of 30. Why should we still give that to them if they lose in November? Hell, Garland should be withdrawn and Clinton should nominate an ultra-liberal 30 year old so this current generation of morally and ethically bankrupt Republicans never get a chance to fill his seat.

Not only that, my goal would be to shove it up their asses more than anything else.