Garland Nomination: Tactical Considerations

Start with the fact that Obama's pick, whoever it was going to be, has zero chance of getting confirmed.

I assume Obama knows that. I assume the nominee has to know that. The Republicans know it too.

.So ask yourself what is the point of Obama even bothering to pick a nominee? Well, he basically has to pick one. The constitution requires him to do so. So does respect for the intuitions of our government.

Okay but given that he has to pick someone, and given that that someone has no chance of getting confirmed, what sort of nominee should he pick?

An in your face, super progressive nominee -- the polar opposite of Scalia? Or a so-called "consensus" pick?

Remember, neither nominee is going anywhere -- at least not in this Senate.

It seems to me there is the most political upside in picking a consensus sort of middle of the road, but highly qualified, low controversy candidate. If he picked a sacrificial nominee who was the polar opposite of Scalia, not only might he rob that nominee of a more realistic chance to actually be confirmed, the nominee him or herself would be turned into a bogey man by the Repugnants and constantly railed against in their campaign. You can hear it now, can't you? "If we get Hillary Clinton (or Bernie Sanders) this shows you what they will do to the court.... blah, blah, blah"

Of course, they will want to make that kind of argument in any case. But it will be significantly harder with Garland. There are no reasonable grounds for the Republicans to complain about the character, temperament, experience, judicial philosophy of Garland. That doesn't mean they won't block it. They will. But that's part of the point. It gets them to show their true colors.

There's of course another calculation that should weigh on any thoughtful Republican (though assuming that there are any such, is a bit of a stretch, I know). They know that if Clinton (or Sanders) were to become president and the democrats were to take the Senate, the next nominee will in all likelihood be younger and less of "consensus" candidate. This prospect exerts some at least minimal pressure toward accommodation.

All told, the Repugnants are thus in something of a bind. Since there is nothing bogeymanish about the current nominee, they cannot use the nominee himself as a bogey man. And they face the prospect that of Clinton making the nomination of someone they would find utterly unacceptable. So why oppose the current nominee? Maybe the hold out some hope of winning the presidency and retaining the Senate. But most of them also seem to believe that Trump will in all likelihood go down to a massive defeat and may take many of them with him.

Calculations be damned, though. They are stuck, as they have been throughout Obama's two terms in a totally uncompromising crouch. That's a bad thing. It does have the upside of enabling the democrats to paint them as what they are -- totally uncompromising, willing to reject even a middle of the road option.

Their rejectionist stance will have the side benefit of mobilizing Democrats by showing that if we were to get a Republican president, especially with a Republican Senate, his nominee will be completely unacceptable. I mean the they are unwilling to confirm even a bland but highly qualified middle of the roader like Garland.

Also, you have to think that only a nominee who saw this as his or her only chance to be nominated would let him or herself be put as a sacrificial lamb in this way. That's probably another thing that recommends Garland -- he's older than most nominees. Probably no chance of being nominated except as a sacrificial lamb. Bully for him for being willing to take a fall for the team, I say.