If there is still the vacancy when Clinton and the Senate Majority Democrats come into office, it will be their vacancy to fill.

But that would be cruel to garland, and I can't see Obama doing that.

I can see the republican senate, who claimed a "principle" of letting the electorate have a say, then denying the winner of the election having a say by confirming garland after all.

Because republicans are all about principle....

By keeping Garland and letting the GOP confirm him after seeing who's going to win the election you are rewarding their strategy. And ensuring that they will do it again when they have the chance.

I just don't think Obama will give up his own choice.

An interesting thought, though, is that democrats could filibuster until the new senate comes in, and either obama or Hillary could nominate someone more liberal....

piece of furniture. He's a real live human being who has been waiting for a vote for a very long time. It would be nothing short of disgustingly insulting to pull his nomination.

I'd work out a way to make it up to him, because the circumstances within which he was nominated have changed greatly.

Garland has behaved with nothing but dignity through this disgusting display of partisanship. He deserves a vote.

And it would be in the best interests of the nation of he did choose someone else. It's not personal.

for the President if he pulled the nomination. It would be unforgivable. That said, I very much doubt this President would do something so disgustingly tacky.

A very frank conversation before Obama nominated. They likely discussed how the Senate would obstruct and it's possible Garland believed he would never be appointed and was willing to be nominated as a placeholder if a Dem won in service to the country of to democratic ideas.

eminently qualified for the job.

approve him in time for this session or he gets withdrawn. He does have a pretty good gig even without getting the supreme court slot. He is, as chief of the DC circuit, the most powerful judge not on the supreme court

The disingenuous thing would be them confirming him after Nov. 8 if she wins. We have no obligation to allow that.

Obama has every right to pull the nomination and let the next president pick. That's a completely valid move. It's a concession that Congress sucks and is only interested in the political games.

He may not be as liberal as one would like, but he is not a conservative, and he is President Obama's choice. In any case, if we GOTV, President Hillary Rodham Clinton will probably have at least two chances to nominate more liberal justices.

disagree with Obama.

Garland accepted the nomination knowing that it was going to be a reach given Mitch's stonewalling. To dump him now would be disloyal. And as for Hillary, I suspect that if he is still in limbo come January I suspect that he will offer to withdraw but Hillary should NOT accept that but instead resubmit his nomination. The Republicans have gamed the process and Hillary should not enable them by conceding the point. I know the arguments about getting a younger nominee etc. But Garland is very qualified and should have been given a vote. Do not compound the injustice for political reasons.

Who set up the screwed up circumstances. And I think whoever is POTUS at the moment has to do the best they can for the country at that moment- instead of making a point. If they wanted to make a point- they could withdraw Garland and put up someone more liberal of we make great gains in the senate. The possibilities have changed, so should the nominee. Garland is a stale nomination, made a long time ago.

If they control the Senate... big if though.

The GOP isn't going to miss their chance to confirm an older justice who will be on the court for a shorter amount of time.

After the elections when the really good stuff can happen.

to appoint William Brennan to the Supreme Court only weeks before the presidential election of 1956. He was later fully confirmed right after Ike was inaugurated for his second term (in a 2 for 1 after another justice passed away after the election)

However, the politics have changed since then - there was very little RW hate radio, no Fox News, etc. to generate the outrage and hate.

I don't think Obama would pause just because of RW hate from their 100s of Republican hate radio and their fox TV. They'll never love him.

We'll have to see what happens after the election. I think Obama will remain busy at work right up to the day he turns over the keys to Clinton.

Obstruction. If it's a more liberal Judge I'm fine with that too. That's what they deserve at this point.

The Senate has not technically gone into recess in a few years now - they always have somebody there to show up and do whatever is legally required to have the Senate stay in sessions. (This is per the SCotUS ruling a few years ago regarding recess appointments - Obama could do the recess appointments, but the senate decides when it is in recess.)

Are reacting as if this would be a huge insult to Garland. Maybe I just competed for too many jobs, I couldn't afford to take shit personally when it falls through.
It just feels like really different circumstances and the consequences last a generation.

Say, Goodwin Liu, who is 46 years old now. He could have served a good 40 years on the court.

However, I think it would look bad if Obama or Clinton asked Garland to step aside, and I don't think Obama would ask that, or even pull a House of Cards like stunt where he hints at it.

HRC will get two opportunities in first two years

Instead of now. The hypocrisy that he will show advancing this nomination could be an effective club in two years.

And doing that to Garland would be a dickish move.

Circumstances would allow. I'd rather have bruised feelings and a more liberal judge. Because we could have them for a generation.

It is the President's legacy I am worried about. He is a decent man and decent men do not do things like that.

In a way you are agreeing with the republicans in that the new president gets to make the pick and President Obama does not.

Why don't you trust the President to see that his first choice is confirmed?

One more bit of sand thrown into the face of the black president, which is one more bit of encouragement for 2018 congressional election, and 2020.

Clinton will have a chance to pick another nominee as frankly, the GOP is drooling at the thought of Ginsburg dying. We will need several picks to undo the damage Scalia did, and Hillary will come at just the right time.

ANY nominee by Clinton. Reflexively. Unmitigated obstructionism has already begun.

They'd know they are forced in a position to accept HRCs nominee. Who would likely be more liberal than Garland. So why not push that person forward after reflection day? I think the GOP will want to jump on Garland adapt if they lose the majority.

There's no guarantee that someone much more liberal than Garland would get through.

If Garland is pulled and replaced with a new nominee, the repubs will have an excuse to drag out the confirmation process and even filibuster the nominee in the hope that they will regain the Senate in 2018. They won't do that to Garland. It's important that the Court be restored to full strength sooner rather than later.