SCOTUS nominee expected as early as this morning EDIT: looks like it's Garland

[Mr. Morden]

Obama will announce the pick at 11am:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/obama-to-announce-supreme-court-pick-at-11-am-220851

[Mr. Morden]

AP says the nominee is Garland:

https://twitter.com/AP/status/710102494702149632

[Mr. Morden]

Both HuffPo and Politico reporters have also tweeted that "Dem sources" say it's Garland:

https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/710102123854352385

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/jbendery/status/710101155280502785

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/16/politics/obama-supreme-court-announcement/index.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

I hope Starwatcher doesn't mind, but I used my mod powers to include Garland's name in the thread topic title, since everyone's now reporting that it's him.  I'll remove it if Obama surprises us, and announces someone else. 

[Mr. Morden]

So is the fact that Garland is old part of the calculation here?  A few months from now, if Clinton is leading general election matchups by double digits and it looks like the GOP stands a good chance of losing the Senate, then having an older nominee makes at least some of the Senate Republicans more likely to buckle, since they figure that a President Hillary Clinton with a Democratic Senate would yield a Supreme Court Justice who's further to the left, and young enough to serve an additional 15 years?  So they give in and approve Garland, since the alternative is worse?

[Mr. Morden]

Garland seems to me a sacrificial lamb. He is a known quantity so it will be hard for the Republicans to make him a pinata, like Cornyn promised to do to any Obama nominee.

And even if Clinton wins and they decide in November to confirm him I'm not so sure that people like Cruz and Mike Lee are going to be willing to go along.

But what is the alternative, should Clinton win and the GOP retain the Senate?  The Republicans continue to block any SCOTUS nominations from Democratic presidents forever?

[Mr. Morden]

Garland seems to me a sacrificial lamb. He is a known quantity so it will be hard for the Republicans to make him a pinata, like Cornyn promised to do to any Obama nominee.

And even if Clinton wins and they decide in November to confirm him I'm not so sure that people like Cruz and Mike Lee are going to be willing to go along.

But what is the alternative, should Clinton win and the GOP retain the Senate?  The Republicans continue to block any SCOTUS nominations from Democratic presidents forever?

Nothing says the Supreme Court must have nine members. The only problem with opening that can of worms is the risk that Hillary will pack the court if the Democrats get a Senate majority. Of course, that will either happen in 2017 or not at all in Hillary's first term, so that is not a particularly big risk.

OK, and what reason will McConnell publicly give for continuing the blockade into Clinton's presidency?  Right now, it's all about the "principle" of waiting until after the election.  But once the election happens, and Clinton is president, they'll have to come up with something else.  Not that they wouldn't be able to come up with something else, but continuing the blockade for years and years on the basis of an ever-changing list of rationales carries a good deal of political risk.