"By blocking Garland, Republicans have contributed to the view among the electorate that they are the obstructionist party. And even members of the party recognize this. ... to the extent Democrats can further expose GOP obstructionism for what it really is, Obama has done just that."

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  I really wonder what the Republican end game will be on this. After all, it would be almost impossible for the next judge not to shift the balance of the the court more to center simply because he or she is not Justice Scalia.  But what happens if Republicans lose the WH again, do they capitulate and confirm Garland, or do they wait and let Secretary Clinton or Senator Sanders nominate a younger more progressive judge? It seems to me republican leadership is taking an awfully big gamble where instead of a gradual shift in the court it could be seismic after November.
*  ... Obama is likely no big fan of Garland. But Garland was the absolute best possible pick to make the GOP look as bat-bleep crazy as they truly are.
*  Yay! It's going to be very tough sledding for the GOP Senators running for re-election as they try to defend this disastrous series of events - not so much to their base, but rather the swing voters. Just hoping their opponents wield the clubs they've been given with purpose and accuracy.  Let's watch Ayotte try to squirm her way out of this one.  Squirm. Squirm. Squirm. Squish.
*  It seems to me that the "will" of the American people is of no concern to the GOP. All together now can we say "Impeach O'Connell"
*  ... I was looking at the Constitution and it doesn't mention replacing a conservative with a conservative anywhere. Are we now making constitutional law as we go? Is the Constitution now a feel good thing? Just asking.
*   Sadly, the bar is set so low that it is considered a "victory" that a handful of Republican senators would actually support bringing Garland's name to the Judiciary committee!  I predict a 0% chance of confirmation. The Republicans are stark raving mad and would not even support a clone of the radical Antonin Scalia, just because it would be this president making the nomination. They are betting the ranch on the election of Trump. So much for the constitution, for history, for precedent, for common decency.
...................................................................................................................................................................
GOP plays another losing hand by blocking Merrick Garland
By Michael A. Cohen, March 18, 2016

Once upon a time, Merrick Garland would have been the kind of Supreme Court selection who would have received bipartisan support in Congress. Harvard-educated, well-respected on both sides of the political aisle and chief judge of the D.C. Court of Appeals, Garland has the credentials — and centrist bona fides — that would ordinarily make him a slam-dunk pick for the highest court in the land.

Of course, we no longer live in that world.

Instead, we live in a world where Senate Republicans have chosen the path of partisan obstructionism. After Justice Antonin Scalia died in February, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell said Republicans would not consider any nominee to fill the seat until after the election. It was a decision driven largely by the GOP’s most extreme supporters, who would rather the party leave a seat on the court vacant for a year, on the off-chance that Republicans take back the White House in November. But in order to pacify the far right, McConnell tied his own hands — so much so that even if Obama selected a noncontroversial milquetoast judge, Republicans would have little choice but to oppose him or her.

Enter Merrick Garland.

It’s not to say that Garland isn’t an excellent judge. From all accounts, he’s a smart, fair-minded, detail-oriented middle-of-the road jurist — a solid selection who is nonetheless unlikely to get anyone’s — particularly liberals’ — juices flowing.

But that’s precisely the point. If President Obama had selected someone more liberal, especially one who holds controversial positions, he would be handing the Republicans a rallying cry. They would suddenly have a rationale for opposing the pick, other than their transparent intention to prevent a Democratic president from changing the ideological balance of the Court.

Garland isn’t that guy. If anything, his selection by Obama has angered liberals, who view Garland as insufficiently progressive.

By blocking Garland, Republicans have contributed to the view among the electorate that they are the obstructionist party. And even members of the party recognize this. Republican senators in purple and blue states, like Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire and Mark Kirk in Illinois, are wavering over the party’s refusal even to meet with Garland. Meanwhile, in Iowa, Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley is being hounded by reporters for his refusal to grant a hearing to Obama’s choice. With public opinion surveys showing that the GOP’s position is deeply unpopular, Grassley and his fellow Republicans will likely have to put up with this for eight more months.

The overall political effect of Garland’s selection is minor; that was likely true of any nominee. But to the extent Democrats can further expose GOP obstructionism for what it really is, Obama has done just that.

And really, he has no one to thank more than McConnell. The majority leader would have been much better off giving every possible consideration to Obama’s selection, and then blocking him or her. But that would not satisfy the Republican base. Instead, he and his fellow Republicans have locked themselves into a position that they are now stuck with until Election Day. Or to put it succinctly, the GOP’s annus horribilis continues.
...................................................................................................................................................................