That would be, of course, cruel to Judge Garland. But it's also not fair for the Republicans to get the "compromise" candidate even when they weren't willing to compromise.

he is a good man, but I would rather see a younger more liberal Justice.

a Dem president to fill.

With the exception of medical reasons, it's not considered retirement unless they hit a specific age or term of service. Otherwise, it's resigning.

Sherman Minton was the most recent retiree below the term of service requirement, who retired due to medical reasons, while it was Ward Hunt and William Moody before him that gave historical precedence for allowing justices to retire for medical reasons before meeting either of the criteria for such.

qualification (new question for me) and found this:

And Hillary will keep Garland as a nominee I it gets to her. But with Kennedy and RGB ready to retire she'll get to name young liberal justices. I want to see far left judges that will be there for 30 years.

If Garland is hers, she could name half the SCOTUS, Beyer is close to retirement too and Thomas has hinted at leaving. Can you imagine if it's Roberts, Alito, and 7 justices named by Obama and Clinton. This court could change the direction of the country permanently from a legal perspective.

That will be my disappointment with her

If she keeps Garret it's out of respect to the office and to Obama.

She should wdraw it and appoint an über liberal to teach those Republicans a lesson. I want to see the GOP Supreme Court stunt completely backfire in their face.

It's Obama's, if she doesn't respect Obama's choice she's saying presidents don't have the right to name judges.

Once she's President, if he hasn't been confirmed, it's her appointment. She should appoint someone else.

Also, Obama should withdraw his appointment if she wins.

Why on earth do you think they'd say yes to an uber-liberal? Merrick Garland is a good pick -- I'm inclined to trust Obama, as he has done well by us all along in his SCOTUS appointments. I remember the kvetching at DU over Sotomayor and Kagan before they got in and showed their mettle.

will approve it. For one thing their dumb ass excuse was that it should be the "next" President who gets to choose. I don't see that changing.

This is why it is critical that we have a Democratic majority in the Senate.

As for who Hillary would choose, that is her choice, she is the President

"Why on earth do you think they'd say yes to an uber-liberal?"

I think it's because the Nov. election will be so lop-sided, such a trouncing of the GOP and the repudiation of Trump, that Clinton will have the political capital to spend almost out-of-hand for the first ninety days. She'll have the initiative and the momentum after January to move a few BIG-ticket items on her agenda-- up to and including an extremely progressive judge nomination.

All this guess-work of mine is predicated on her winning a decisive victory, turning some red states blue, and racking up 450+ electoral votes. And if this guess of mine is as accurate as my other faith-based prognostications about this election to date, then yes-- I'm very, very wrong.

but rubbing it in the face of the Republicans. Making them pay for their gamble. If you don't then they made the correct decision to block Obamas appointment. Their decision will have had only upside and no downside...and that will only encourage more of that type of behavior. You have to give their decision a downside.

If he were around, I would urge Clinton to nominate Saul Alinksy or some other leftist radical to the court. Kidding, but there are some uber progressive justices out there who should be considered.

he would not have been his first choice with a Dem senate, like Hillary will have.

And in the end if they get their way after sticking it to President Obama I will be disappointed

It doesn't change because there is a new president in office.

at midterms. She might not get someone more liberal than Garland through for her next Justice.

I cannot imagine Thomas retiring while Hillary is President.

Kennedy. The most we could gain, via resignation, is two seats.

That could change depending on the justices health condition. Thomas will hold on for four more years. Justices typically resign under a President whose party appointed them.

Two seats is a good pick up, but for this to be true change then Garland needs to be pushed out. If Obama were smart, he would have put a timeline on the nomination with the deadline being a week before the election.

after far right and strong right justices of course, would be far left justices who did not reflect the general ideology and principles of any major mainstream group. Restoring trust in the courts is extremely important for a healthy nation. We need justices a large majority of people feel they can trust to provide security and justice for the nation, and that means staying within mainstream ideologies.

Strong liberals with brilliant, flexible minds and fine judicial temperaments would be my choice. Flexible, among other things, as in always considering legal principles and ideas independent of where they are traditionally assumed to lie on the political spectrum. No rigid ideologues with an agenda, no matter how much they agree with me.

and the three other conservatives got their way. Expect the term to reappear once Garland is approved and the balance tips the other way.

in the lame duck. They will also pass TPP.

It would not surprise me to actually learn that was a possibility Garland and Obama agreed to before his name was surfaced. I have seen no indication of that one way or the other.

The fruits of his folly will be sweet.

Let Hillary pick the next one

No more compromise with these bastards. Appoint the most liberal young justice there is. Garland WAS the compromise, and the republicans spit all over him.

around like fools. With their head fool thanking himself for another year of not doing his job in Congress. Obama leaves the GOP in the dust.

and then withdraw him. That's not how he works. Garland is older (64 in Nov.), this is his last chance at the Court and, on paper, he is better qualified than either Kagan or Sotomayor. His age as well as his occasional moderation (which should not be confused with conservatism) should clear the way for his confirmation post-election. This is why he was nominated in the first place. HRC will get her first chance to nomiate a younger, more reliably liberal justice very quickly with Ginsburg's retirement and, hopefully, Breyer's, before her first term is up. The seat has been empty since March and should not remain so for a full year.

Nor does Clinton want any of the focus of her first 100 days to be on Scalia's replacement. That's the time to get an infrastructure bill passed and lay the rest of the legislative foundation, including big issues like immigration, minimum wage and health care, that will take her through the mid-terms and 2020.

time to hold hearing, and then vote, especially with the holidays occurring etc.

I don't buy the OP.

It will be Hillary's call, which is why it is critical to GOTV for both the White House and Congress

Clinton will have far too much capital and could pick, nominate and seat the most liberal judge of her choosing come January. The GOP would be wise to allow Obama's somewhat more moderate pick.

If they play their cards right, the GOP could use the kabuki show hearings over Garland to better drown out Trump's voice and give appearance that they're actually doing something.