Will Garland get a Hearing and Vote?

[Free Bird]

He was obviously picked to appease the GOP, but will they stay true to their pledge?

[GLPman]

I will guess "yes/yes." It will be tough for the GOP to effectively counter Garland's moderate record and experience, which is no doubt why Obama selected him.

[Nym90]

If Clinton wins and the Dems have taken back the Senate, the GOP would be smart to confirm Garland during the lame duck session. Obviously that would make clear the hypocricy of how the voters should supposedly decide the next Justice, but he's more moderate than anyone Clinton would nominate under that scenario.

[Nym90]

I will guess "yes/yes." It will be tough for the GOP to effectively counter Garland's moderate record and experience, which is no doubt why Obama selected him.

True, and they probably anticipated Obama would nominate just such a person and thus came out opposed to any nominee on principle before the nominee was announced. They can now claim that their opposition to him is not based upon his record, views, or qualifications.

[GLPman]

I will guess "yes/yes." It will be tough for the GOP to effectively counter Garland's moderate record and experience, which is no doubt why Obama selected him.

True, and they probably anticipated Obama would nominate just such a person and thus came out opposed to any nominee on principle before the nominee was announced. They can now claim that their opposition to him is not based upon his record, views, or qualifications.

Agreed, but we both know that position comes off as obstructionist since McConnell and Grassley announced such a position within days of Scalia's death without even knowing who the nominee would be, which will inevitably hurt them and their chances of winning the presidency and maintaining the Senate. It would have been smarter (but that gives them too much credit) to wait until Obama selected the nominee and then objected on the basis of that nominee's qualifications and drag out the whole process. I do not see this current "the people need to choose the next nominee" position as being as tenable.

[Illiniwek]

Unfortunately, no. What a waste of a great legal and judicial talent.

[The Ex-Factor]

If Clinton wins and the Dems have taken back the Senate, the GOP would be smart to confirm Garland during the lame duck session. Obviously that would make clear the hypocricy of how the voters should supposedly decide the next Justice, but he's more moderate than anyone Clinton would nominate under that scenario.

Dems will surely filibuster Garland after the election if they have flipped the senate.  Would the GOP gut the filibuster a month before going into the minority?

Feels like Obama and the Democratic party bosses would put pressure on the Democratic senators to just confirm Garland instead of holding out for a more liberal nominee - seems like something they would do.

[anvi]

Unfortunately, not before November, if at all. 

I have a proposal.  How about we just forget about governing?  Let's just campaign.  We'll hold a two-year election cycle, sort of like a national game.  Someone will win, and then we'll start the cycle again.  In the meantime, the courts, legislature and executive can be dissolved.  No harm will come from this proposal at all...no one will notice the difference.

[Yan]

No on both fronts. The Republican Party is hell-bent on electoral Armageddon.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Lolololol no

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Maybe a hearing. But he isn't getting the necessary 60 votes on the floor.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dems are gonna win the US Senate due to this stalemate, Dems are getting a fundraising boost from this. Of course he wont get a hearing or a vote, but will in the lame duck session, so that Clinton doesnt get to chose a liberal nominee. Which suits her, Bill chose Ginnsberg & Breyer

[Santander]

Collins, Flake, Portman, Ayotte and Kirk plan to at least meet with Garland. He'll probably get a hearing, but he won't get cloture unless the GOP thinks it'll lose the Senate. I don't think Obama would send arguably the most qualified judge in the country out in public to get beat up by the Senate for months if he didn't think there was a good chance he'd get confirmed. Biden has a good feel of what's going on at ground-level and I'm sure he told Obama he thinks it can happen.

[Orser67]

I voted no to both, but it's tough to predict what will happen if Clinton wins in November.

It's weird how unconcerned the senate GOP is about getting a 45 year old liberal Scalia next winter with a Trump nomination.

I'm not sure that someone like Liu could be confirmed even if Dems take back the Senate. There are a handful of red state Dems (Donnelly, Manchin, McCaskill, Tester, Heitkamp) who might vote against a really liberal nominee.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

If the Dems get the majority back, Senate GOP will confirm Garland in Lame Duck session. BILL Clinton nominated Ginnsberg & Breyer and Hilary has backed Garland.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I voted no to both, but it's tough to predict what will happen if Clinton wins in November.

It's weird how unconcerned the senate GOP is about getting a 45 year old liberal Scalia next winter with a Trump nomination.

I'm not sure that someone like Liu could be confirmed even if Dems take back the Senate. There are a handful of red state Dems (Donnelly, Manchin, McCaskill, Tester, Heitkamp) who might vote against a really liberal nominee.

Yeah, especially with the 60 vote rule still in effect for SCOTUS nominations. There is literally no scenario in which Republicans won't filibuster.

[Yan]

I voted no to both, but it's tough to predict what will happen if Clinton wins in November.

It's weird how unconcerned the senate GOP is about getting a 45 year old liberal Scalia next winter with a Trump nomination.

I'm not sure that someone like Liu could be confirmed even if Dems take back the Senate. There are a handful of red state Dems (Donnelly, Manchin, McCaskill, Tester, Heitkamp) who might vote against a really liberal nominee.

Yeah, especially with the 60 vote rule still in effect for SCOTUS nominations. There is literally no scenario in which Republicans won't filibuster.

Which is exactly why the Democrats would do well to nuke the filibuster as soon as Trump hands them the Senate again.

[Virginiá]

Might be worth it in the end for him not to get a vote if we hold the WH and recapture the Senate. Why take a 63 year old moderate when we could get a 45 - 50 year old liberal?

I can deal with the moderate stuff assuming he at least has positive views on campaign finance reform, but 63 years old? Nope. That just gives Republicans another chance in roughly 15 years or so to blockade a new nominee or appoint their crazy conservative.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

^^ Obama would disagree, he wants the legacy of making the court majority-liberal. Plus, the next president might get to replace Kennedy.

[Likely Voter]

One idea I have seen floated by some Republicans is to hold hearings but no vote until the lame duck session after the election. That way if Hillary wins, they can confirm him before she can put someone more liberal and younger on, and if the GOP nominee wins, they can reject him.  

Not sure Hillary or Obama would agree to go along with this. I assume if Hillary wins she might be able to convince Obama to withdraw the nomination, especially if the Dems win the Senate.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

What if Cruz or Trump win and GOP retain the Senate? Garland would be out and a conservative would get the nod.

[Blair]

What if Cruz or Trump win and GOP retain the Senate? Garland would be out and a conservative would get the nod.

Not with Trump, he'd probably appoint his sister

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I voted Yes/Yes since no timeframe was mentioned.  Right now, it looks like Clinton will defeat TRUMP in November, which means that the lame duck Senate will approve Garland after a quickie hearing.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No pro-choice nominee will be confirmed.

Dems will hols the 272 map and win OH/Va and defeat Trump, and Garland will be confirmed in Lame Duck.

This election is more about Ginnsberg plus Scalia seat, not just about the Scalia seat. And 14 th Amendment holds dear to Blacks and Latinos, who are in SW. When it comes to children of illegals being born as a citizens.

[Mr. Morden]

I voted Yes/Yes since no timeframe was mentioned.  Right now, it looks like Clinton will defeat TRUMP in November, which means that the lame duck Senate will approve Garland after a quickie hearing.

What if Clinton wins, but the Republicans retain the Senate?  Do they still approve Garland in the lame duck session, or is the Republican Senate now going to try to block any Scalia replacement nomination by any Democratic president as long as they have a majority?