There is much focus on what the Republican Senate should calculate about the mostly liberal candidate now before it, versus later possibilities of a more liberal candidate (under Clinton) or a more conservative one (under Cruz) or God knows what (under Trump). Less focused upon is the equally important but reverse calculation the White House was surely doing in deciding its course of action.
It's hardly news that President Obama is thinking about his "legacy," nor is it news that Supreme Court appointments are a major part of that legacy.
Why then did Obama pick a 63 year-old, left-but-not-far-left white male Harvard grad from inside the now-detested Beltway? This is the kind of nomination sure to leave Obama's base lukewarm to cool, which is certainly what seems to be happening.
My guess is as crass as all the identity politics that have colored the talk about a replacement since Justice Scalia's death. My guess is that Obama thinks Clinton will be indicted or, more to the point, will lose anyway, making the seat a Republican choice.
Obama is, if anything, a shrewd and in some ways a visionary politician. It seems to me that he chose Judge Garland, whom he twice passed over, because he thinks that's the best the Left has a realistic chance of getting. All the focus on Trump has deflected attention from something my more acute Democratic friends have been complaining about for months: Hillary is a lousy candidate. She's a distrusted, crony-capitalist, establishment figure in a year in which all those things are electoral poison.
It's not just the Republicans who have to confront disagreeable choices.
The GOP better consider the statistical probabilities very carefully ...
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republicans-could-do-a-lot-worse-than-merrick-garland-under-president-clinton-or-president-trump
Wasn't it fivethirtyeight that just a few days ago had Hillary winning the Michigan primary by a whopping 21 percent -- when she went on promptly to lose it?
I think Republicans might be better advised to take their "warnings" from a different source.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/michigan-democratic/
Actually, Bill, Nate Silver has a pretty good track record when it comes to political predictions. And his opinion is supported by many apolitical prediction markets.
http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-winner
In any event, do you actually believe that, at this time, Trump or Cruz has a better chance of winning the presidency than Clinton? If not, do you actually forsee any events transpiring between now and November that have a realistic chance of altering this probability?
My point is simply that it might be better to make the decision whether or not to give Garland a hearing based upon objective probabilities, instead of emotion. With the ultimate goal of replacing Scalia with a justice whose method of constitutional and statutory analysis is as close to his as possible.
No one gets everything they want.
paul --
It was about ten days ago that fivethirtyeight overestimated Hillary's strength by such a huge amount as to show that it's either wildly incompetent or dishonest. I don't think now is the best time to be crowing about how good it is.
I have no idea who's going to win the presidency and neither do you. Personally, I'm still awaiting the outcome of the 2008 general election, which these same brilliant pollsters told us was between Rudy Giuliani and Clinton. Have you found out yet which one got sent to the White House that year?
"My point is simply that it might be better to make the decision whether or not to give Garland a hearing based upon objective probabilities, instead of emotion."
"Probabilities" are unreliable by definition, and it's not emotion. It's a genuine and deep difference about the role of the judicial branch, constitutional interpretation, and many other extremely important things. You're wrong in attempting to belittle the Republican view as merely "emotion."
"No one gets everything they want."
Just so. But if you stand tough and use the power you won at the most recent national election, you have a better chance of getting closer to what you want than if you don't.
P.S. One of the reasons Trump, whom both of us oppose, is getting as far as he is lies in many Republicans' resentment that the people they sent to Congress too readily cave in to Obama.
Any Republican who signs on to a Supreme Court candidate who is weak on the 2nd Amendment will not be reelected to office.