The Hill: Clinton faces tough decision with court pick

[Omaha Steve]

(Dump Merrick Garland)

By Alexander Bolton - 11/04/16 06:04 AM EDT

Hillary Clinton will face a tough decision on the Supreme Court if she wins the presidency on Tuesday.

The Democratic nominee must decide whether to keep Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee to succeed the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, or move in a different direction.

Liberals are ramping up pressure on her to jettison Obama’s centrist nominee and pick a younger and more liberal judge.

They also want Clinton to expand the racial and gender diversity of the court to better represent the constituencies Democrats are depending on this Election Day.

FULL story: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/304217-clinton-faces-tough-decision-with-court-pick

[JHan]

1. Obama!!

[lsewpershad]

7. O will not be my choice

Too willing to please the other side sometimes at the expense of the real truth.

[JHan]

8. haha I wasn't serious - Obama would be the ultimate troll tho

[DURHAM D]

2. It all depends on control of the Senate. nt

[still_one]

3. If Hillary wins, and we get the Senate, the republicans will let the nomination go through under

President Obama, so it will be a non-issue.

[JenniferJuniper]

4. Unless he withdraws or is pulled from contention on Wednesday

As Rachel said early last week, we think we may think we know how Obama will handle this, but we don't really know.

[still_one]

6. There is no way President Obama would do that to Garland. Rachel's analysis is wrong on this

President Obama would not play Garland like that

If the republicans allow his nomination to go through, President Obama will fully back it.

Rachel's assessment of things are not always correct, like her gushing complements for bret baier's apology, when he said that Hillary faced a pending indictment on the Clinton Foundation, from his sources in the FBI, and 48 hours later came out and apologizing for not being correct when he used the word indictment. Baier did NOT deserve praise for that apology, which took 48 hours to occur, and the network and the trump campaign are still saying it

[JenniferJuniper]

9. Point is, we don't know what might happen.

[PdxSean]

5. Ideally, Garland will withdraw.

Upon withdrawing himself from consideration, Garland would cite to the Republicans refusal to confirm pending the election outcome, noting that he does not wish to reward them for such conduct.

[davidn3600]

10. So Garland is going to end a chance to be on the Supreme Court by pulling himself out...

...so that Hillary could nominate someone further to the left than him?

Sorry, but that don't make any sense.

[bluesbassman]

12. PdxSean made a good point. If Garland is a man of principle it makes a lot of sense.

Obama selected a nominee he felt had the best chance to be confirmed and the GOP used the nomination as a political football. For the GOP to pass him now flies against the very reason they gave for the obstruction in that they claimed the President elect deserved the opportunity to appoint. Confirming Garland at this point would be a direct slap in the face to Clinton regardless of Garland's qualifications.

Your point seems to indicate Garland should or would put his own ambition above the principles involved here.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

14. Withdrawing himself from consideration takes the heat off the Republicans

Heat that they deserve to get IMHO for their shenanigans. I cannot believe the number of people here and elsewhere whom think Garland withdrawing himself or being withdrawn by President Obama is a good idea. To me, it just plays into the Republican's severe flouting of SCOTUS confirmation process precedent (to which Democrats should not aspire to do themselves IMHO).

[geek tragedy]

11. It really depends on the outcome of Senate races. nt

[Proud Liberal Dem]

13. I think that Garland's nomination should stand

for as long as President Obama is in office. We should not voluntarily accept the precedent that Republicans are setting in terms of blockading SCOTUS nominations (or any nominations, really). President Obama has been well within his rights as President to nominate and have the Senate consider a nominee of his choosing no matter how long he has left in his Presidential term, especially since there has obviously been more than enough for the time for the Senate to have considered his choice. This blockade has NOTHING to do with trying to "respect" the will of the American public, their feelings about Garland, or even logistical issues such as the amount of time the Senate has left on its work calendar to schedule and hold hearings and a vote. This is all about keeping Scalia's seat empty until a REPUBLICAN President can replace him with a like-minded Justice. They thought that they would be able to shoehorn a Republican into the WH next January (and they conceivably still could though probably not), so they decided that blockading a potential replacement was the best strategy to do it. For the most part, they have gotten away with it. Whether they can manage to do that for another 4-8 years under a new Democratic WH is another matter altogether but this seat *should* be President Obama's seat to fill as long as the nomination remains active and his to make IMHO.