NINA TOTENBERG, NPR MORNING EDITION
Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. He's 63 years old. He was a runner-up to - he's been a runner-up in past nominations - the Sotomayor nomination his name was prominent and again in the Kagan nomination. He's - to be blunt about it- the only white male on the finalist list. He is a beloved figure on the court of appeals by Republicans and Democrats alike. And I'm told that the Republicans in the Senate actually sent some sort of a back-channel message to the White House that if it were Garland that they would confirm him if the Democrats prevail in the presidential election, that they would confirm him in the lame-duck session and that the whole caucus would be on board, that it wouldn't be a fight. Now, you know, this is all - I have good sources for this, but, you know, from somebody's lips to God's ears so to speak, who knows?
He's a moderate liberal.They can see a 19-year record. And it's a liberal record, but it's also a record that is pro-law enforcement.He has a lot of friends in the Republican community as well as the Democratic community, among the Republicans on his court. He is the chief judge. And chief judges are not always beloved, but he is really beloved. And so I think that their thought would be better him - and he's 63 years old and how long will he serve? His father, by the way, is 90. How long will he serve? That's better than whoever Hillary Clinton - assuming it's Hillary Clinton - would name or Bernie Sanders more so.
PAUL WALDMAN, WASHINGTON POST
Garland is the one whose appointment most clearly portrays Republicans as obstructionists when they refuse to consider him. That will not only help Hillary Clinton when she argues that Republicans are unreasonable and irresponsible, but it will also put some vulnerable Senate Republicans in uncomfortable positions, particularly Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, all of whom face tough challenges in the fall. So while it may not have a transformative effect on the election, Garland’s nomination could, at least by a bit, increase the chances both that Clinton is elected president and that Democrats will be able to take back the Senate.
Might he actually be confirmed? The answer is yes. Here’s how it might happen:
- Hillary Clinton wins in November. Given that Donald Trump looks like he will be the nominee of the Republican Party, this looks like a strong possibility.
- Democrats take back the Senate. Democrats need a net gain of four seats in order to get to 50, which was about an even bet before; with Trump leading the Republicans, that looks even more likely.
- Democratic Senate leaders consider eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations. If Clinton were to win, Republicans could decide that they can live with an eight-member Supreme Court for four years, and simply refuse to confirm any Clinton nominee. If they do that, and if Democrats gain a majority, the Democrats would almost certainly get fed up enough to just take the final step and eliminate the filibuster for those nominations (they already eliminated filibusters for lower-court nominations in 2013). Indeed, they’re already considering it.
- Republicans return after the election and confirm Garland. If Clinton wins and Democrats take the Senate, Republicans will face a choice between Garland and whoever Clinton would nominate — and that person would probably be more liberal, and far younger. So Garland, a moderate who might only spend 10 or 15 years on the Court, would suddenly look like easily the best option. So before the next Senate takes office in January, Republicans would quickly confirm Garland and cut their losses.
Liberals are reacting with a decided lack of enthusiasm over Garland’s nomination, both because of his moderation and his age. For them, the best of all scenarios is that Garland’s nomination flounders, Hillary Clinton gets elected, and appoints a younger and more liberal justice. They might get their wish — if Republicans don’t figure out what’s most in their interests first.