McConnell rules out confirming Garland in lame duck

[Virginiá]

Most likely he's just lying. Right now, there is no benefit at all to saying he would do this, because that would go completely against his "The next president should choose" narrative. He would look like a massive liar and a hypocrite.

Though... Not that he isn't one already

[Virginiá]

I can't believe McConnell called Garland the most liberal judge in history on MTP, though.

He said that? You have to be kidding... right? Maybe a misinterpretation...?

I know McConnell is some of the worst lying, heartless scum the GOP has to offer, but my god, that is a new low for him. One I never thought he could reach, even after the past 7 years.

[Virginiá]

Yeah, in response to a question by Chuck Todd on "if Hillary wins and Democrats take the Senate, they'll probably nominate a more liberal justice" and McConnell's response was that it's not possible to get more liberal than Merrick Garland.

The man has no shame at all. He just spews lies and talking points. He is almost an exact embodiment of everything the Republican anti-establishment movement hates about the GOP.

Good thing that we're highly likely to be in a position this coming January to prove him wrong on just how liberal a Supreme Court justice can get

[Virginiá]

So, what are the chances with Trump getting the nomination for good that the GOP flips on their anti-Garland outlook?

I can't see it happening at this point (at least until after November 8th), for 2 primary reasons:

1. The backlash from their voters would be worse than just holding out. Their base isn't going to see it as "crap, confirm Garland before Hillary gets in!". Not when so many think that Trump can actually win. All they will see is the crooked establishment doing whatever Obama wants yet again.

2. They already made a huge deal about "giving the people a chance to weigh in", so now it seems almost impossible to go back on that without looking like they want to ignore the people. This fits nicely with #1 above.

[Virginiá]

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.

[Virginiá]

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.

[Virginiá]

Except he can't do it unilaterally - even under nuclear rules you need 51 votes to change the rules. Unless this is going to be an utter R destruction, a D majority in 2017 will be 51-49 or 52-48. They'd have to get essentially every Democrat on board with the change, and the 5 romney-state ones (which could become 6, I wouldn't underestimate Kirkpatrick) might not be willing to go along with it - and the 5 current ones are all up for reelection in 2018 - this will REEK of partisanship like nothing else to MO/ND/MT/WV/IN.

Before you toss the idea of dems going against Schumer out the window, remember that D leadership was still whipping FEINSTEIN into submission in the final days before the vote to end filibusters for all justices except SCOTUS.

You could be right, but what Republicans are doing right now is very significant and unprecedented. They are going against the spirit of that thing they say they love so much, I think it's called the Constitution, purely for partisan purposes. On top of that, it's an affront to Obama/Democrats, even after he went out of his way to please them with a consensus nominee.

Given that, it's really not hard to see Democrats agreeing to gut it.

[Virginiá]

Frankly, I would not be surprised if Democrats have 54-58 seats next year with how things are going.  If so, I could see them dropping the general filibuster threshold from 60 to 55 votes, but leaving it in place at 55 for general legislation and for SCOTUS.  They should be able to get Collins and Graham for any non-crazy Clinton nominee next year anyway.

I agree with that. It's time that they either get rid of it, or reduce the number of votes required for cloture, because at this point it has effectively crippled Congress. There is no reason we have to worship and defend very old Senate rules just for the sake of it. It no longer works, and new rules are needed.

Honestly, I also do not believe the American people are willing to sit through another 2 - 8 years of gridlock while America's problems worsen. For Democrats, if we win the White House this year, that means things need to get done or people will blame the party who holds the WH, as usual.

[Virginiá]

I just find it unlikely that Obama would make the last act of his presidency admitting to the American people that he intentionally put up a substandard Supreme Court nominee.

That really depends on how you want to define 'substandard'. He put up a candidate that he thought would best fit what he wanted in a justice while also having the best chance of getting confirmed. Clearly he deferred heavily towards attributes that make the nominee more acceptable to the GOP.

[Virginiá]

The more I think about it, the more I think Garland really is Obama's top choice for this seat.  He doesn't seem to have much personal desire to recreate the Warren Court.  In interviews, he worries (almost to a fault?) about future judicial overreach creating electoral backlash against the left.  He is most concerned about Democrats being free enact their agenda legislatively or by executive action as they see fit.  Looking at his past appointees, Sotomayor might join in some future wildly left-wing ruling, but I don't see Kagan doing that either.

Well one thing that makes me doubt Garland was even in his original top 3 is his age. He is too old and I just can't see why Obama would nominate someone who would end up retiring/passing away only 15 or so years later. Surely he could, given the chance, find a nominee that is younger and meets his personal criteria.