Should Hillary renominate Garland

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

She should out of the good of the heart, but it's not as if he's the only person I'd approve of her nominating. If she wants Sirvansian or Klobuchar, let's hold the hearing and see how things go.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

If Hillary won, why wouldn't the Senate just confirm Garland before she takes office?

They would have just spend a whole year saying the president shouldn't get to choose the Supreme Court member in his final year in office.

You think McConnell cares much about that? Yeah, it's why they won't confirm Garland before the election no matter how much Trump trails, as it could easily backfire, but if and after Hillary wins and takes the senate, I could easily see them deciding they can't risk a more liberal nominee and therefore elect to approve Garland while they have the chance.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Depends on what the Senate looks like (D vs. R, and how many moderates who would be willing to compromise).

However, I don't think she should nominate him just because Obama did. That's stupid.

Yes, it all comes down to the Senate.  If it's an R majority, she pretty much has to renominate Garland.  If it's 50/50, she probably should because Manchin might throw a fit if it's someone really liberal.  If she has at least 51 Dems, she should go for someone like Nina Pillard instead.

If I were Hillary, I wouldn't try someone really liberal unless I had 55 Dems or more. I could definitely see all 5 Romney state dems uniting against a really liberal nominee to help boost their re-election chances. And even 55 might not be enough, depending on what happens with the Supreme Court filibuster. I know Schumer is open to eliminating it, but considering Reid was barely able to get Feinstein to vote for lower court filibuster elimination, I don't think getting the needed 51 votes to eliminate the SCOTUS filibuster would be a guarantee.