If GOP doesn't confirm him before the election, Clinton should nominate more liberal justice not someone who majority of the GOP would be happy with if it weren't Obama nominating him.

It was the president's choice...and the GOP screwed him. The only way she should pick another judge is if Obama withdraws his name.

They had previously said they would vote for him...some anyhow...but of course, the GOP are liars. Obama should tell the GOP he will withdraw Garland...but if he doesn't ...I feel Hillary must follow through.

There is a history of moderate justices who go with a liberal bias when the shit hits the fan.

Also, would imagine that, after all the crazy about his nomination, he would feel more in charity with the liberal agenda.

Garland seems like a well qualified and fair judge, but I would rather have someone more liberal. The Republicans have made the election a referendum on the court and now Trump is telling people that Hillary would appoint someone who doesn't believe in the 2nd Amendment. If she wins, I would love to see her interpret that as a mandate for appointing a judge who doesn't believe that the 2nd Amendment creates a private right to own firearms (or at least to own military grade assault rifles).

What is most important to me in terms of the Supreme Court is where the new justice stands on binding arbitration in take it or leave it form contracts. It's not a very sexy issue to non-lawyers, but it makes it close to impossible to bring class actions, which means that effectively, many rights like minimum wage and consumer protection will never be vindicated because individual claims are too small to be practical for any lawyer to litigate. For the past decade, the Supreme Court has repeatedly limited states' rights to prohibit or refuse to enforce these one-sided contracts, even for claims entirely under state law. I never thought I would say this, but I actually agree with Justice Thomas about that expansive interpretation of the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act being a huge federal overreach and encroachment on states' rights.

My daughter broke both her ankles and the doctor put a cast one of the broken ankles and never set it...he told her she was fine 7 weeks later. and that she needed no therapy...he took X-rays and must have known there was still a break..thank God I knew something was wrong and got a second opinion...two surgeries later...she is getting better, but I could not find a lawyer to take the case as we have some sort of judicial reform in Ohio. So now we have to pay that bastard....seriously thinking about small claims court.

We all know that if President Obama tells the Republicans that today is Thursday, they'll deny it and try to pass a bill removing Thursday from the calendar. What if Senator Reid is just messing with Republicans? Since they won't even meet with Judge Garland, what if this is a ploy to really throw the GOP senators off-balance?

Here's Michael Scott explaining the awesome power of reverse psychology:

People seem susceptible to this sort of diversion this cycle.

I was thinking Obama should demand a vote before the fall recess, or he's withdrawing the name. That would put extra pressure on McConnell to confirm the older, more moderate guy in fear of the younger, more leftier pick they might get from a newly elected Clinton. Seems liek a solid play.

At the same time, the GOPers are obviously playing up the judges angle really hard right now (that's the substance of the script that Trump managed to toss into his dumpster fire), so the smart play here might be to sit tight on Garland for now, as it shows up the "unity" narrative Clinton is pushing without pushing the cross-over Republicans back to Trump.

Probably a good play for now.

Except in the extremely unlikely event they retain the Senate, then they will blockade the Court as long as they cling to their majority.