How would you vote on Merrick Garland's nomination?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Aye (D). No reason to oppose this incredibly qualified nominee.

[Classic Conservative]

Nay (R)

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Nay (R)

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

Aye. Really proud of Obama for not playing politics and picking a sound choice that isn't a rubber stamp for Chuck Schumer's or Harry Reid's far-left, out of touch agenda.

[Pyro]

The choice multiple Republicans have praised as their best option.
Not to mention an exceedingly pro-corporate, faux moderate judge. Strong Nay.

[Mr. Smith]

Yes, that spot needs to be filled now.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Aye. Really proud of Obama for not playing politics and picking a sound choice that isn't a rubber stamp for Chuck Schumer's or Harry Reid's far-left, out of touch agenda.

[Potus]

Pro-abortion and anti-gun.

[TJ in Oregon]

Nay and would vote against any Republican who votes Aye in the next primary and possibly general election as well.

[Illiniwek]

Of course!

[Antonio the Sixth]

Aye. Not a fan by any means and I'm disappointed that, out of such a good bunch, Obama chose one of the worst (though that might turn out to be a good thing - if the Senate was going to shoot down any nominee, then it will give Hillary the excuse to nominate someone like Jane Kelly instead), but I believe that the standard to reject a judicial appointment, especially for ideological reasons, should be very high.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Yes on holding hearings, No prior to November, Yes in Lame Duck if Hillary wins.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Aye. Not a fan by any means and I'm disappointed that, out of such a good bunch, Obama chose one of the worst (though that might turn out to be a good thing - if the Senate was going to shoot down any nominee, then it will give Hillary the excuse to nominate someone like Jane Kelly instead), but I believe that the standard to reject a judicial appointment, especially for ideological reasons, should be very high.

[Intell]

Aye. Not a fan by any means and I'm disappointed that, out of such a good bunch, Obama chose one of the worst (though that might turn out to be a good thing - if the Senate was going to shoot down any nominee, then it will give Hillary the excuse to nominate someone like Jane Kelly instead), but I believe that the standard to reject a judicial appointment, especially for ideological reasons, should be very high.

[Goldwater]

AYE

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wait for more information now.
If a Democrat wins in November, then a firm no.

[dead0man]

Aye (I)

[Sir Mohamed]

Aye. The vote is usually just a confirmation on the person's qualifications, no political game.

[Clark Kent]

Yes on holding hearings, No prior to November, Yes in Lame Duck if Hillary wins.

[DavidB.]

Aye (R), since there's not going to be a Republican president anyway, and the next Democratic president would nominate someone far more liberal.

[Anna Komnene]

Lean Aye, but it would be nice if the Senate held a hearing.  Then I'd have more information to actually base my opinion on.

[Pingvin]

Pro-abortion and anti-gun.

Nay and would vote against any Republican who votes Aye in the next primary and possibly general election as well.

This.

[Maxwell]

Aye.

[Boston Bread]

Aye, but I'd expect a better nominee with Clinton as VP.

[Blair]

Aye. Not a fan by any means and I'm disappointed that, out of such a good bunch, Obama chose one of the worst (though that might turn out to be a good thing - if the Senate was going to shoot down any nominee, then it will give Hillary the excuse to nominate someone like Jane Kelly instead), but I believe that the standard to reject a judicial appointment, especially for ideological reasons, should be very high.