Should Hillary renominate Garland

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

No (sane)

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Somewhat depends on the Senate composition, but I do think Garland should be on the Court.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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

That would take:

1. Democrats getting a majority in November.
2. Nuclear option regarding judicial nominees being invoked (not something both parties would like in long term).
3. The whole process taking place between January 3 and January 20.

No way these conditions will be fulfilled.

[Mr. Smith]

I'm ambivalent on the matter.

[Vega]

No. He was intended as a take it or leave it compromise candidate by Obama, and that's how he should remain.

[Nym90]

If Republicans keep the Senate, yes. Otherwise she should choose someone younger and more progressive.

[Nym90]

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.

Exactly. The Democrats could filibuster and throw their words back in their face.

[Figueira]

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.

[Green Line]

No.  She should nominate someone much more conservative.

[Bojack Horseman]

If I were Barack Obama, I would withdraw Garland's nomination on Wednesday, November 9 after Hillary has won. I'd then say with a nice sh**t eating grin, "You're getting exactly what you wanted: the next president to appoint the replacement. Be careful what you wish for because it might just come true."

I'd withdraw him so that Republicans can't do what I think they'll do: ram through his confirmation in the lame duck session so Hillary doesn't get to make the appointment.

[Ogre Mage]

Only if Republicans still control the Senate, which I doubt.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former 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.

[Adam Griffin]

No. If Dems take the Senate, we should nuke the filibuster on the first day and proceed with shoving through however many Justices and judges we get the opportunity to appoint, with them being as progressive and as young as possible. If the GOP refuses to compromise in governance with the party that is clearly the majority in this country, then we should focus on reshaping and eliminating as many built-in advantages of the minority party as possible.

[Vosem]

There is a decent chance that the vote on Merrick Garland takes place between the inauguration of the new Congress on January 3 and the inauguration of the new President on January 21 (and, thus, becomes essentially the last relevant event of the Obama Presidency).

[politicallefty]

No, she is under no obligation to do so. However, whether or not she should actually do so depends on how the Senate turns out. Some people have already posted the way I'm thinking.

I think Democrats will need 52 seats to use the nuclear option on Day 1 of the 115th Congress on January 3rd. If you look at the nuclear option from 2013, there were three Democratic defections: Joe Manchin, Mark Pryor, and Carl Levin. Levin was someone that believed in the institutions of the Senate. I don't think we have to have the same worries about his successor, Gary Peters. Mark Pryor was defeated by Tom Cotton, so that's a moot point. So, the only current sitting member of the Democratic Caucus that voted against the nuclear option in 2013 is Joe Manchin. I prefer to prepare for the worst case scenario where he does the same again.

Now, the reason I say 52 instead of 51 assuming Manchin defects is that you really have to prepare for a surprise. I would be worried about someone like Bayh is he's part of the majority. If Democrats have at least 52 seats in the Senate after November, she should nominate someone brand new. That alongside with a Hillary victory, I have no doubt President Obama would withdraw his nomination if that's what she wanted. To be honest, in any event, I would expect President Obama to defer to a President-elect Hillary Clinton.

At 51 seats, things are tight, but the above scenario is still possible.

If we're in a 50-50 Senate, I don't think Democrats would have the votes to go thermonuclear. It would probably be best to let the nomination stand and see if all Democrats could be united to end the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations. I doubt it though, and that would be reason enough to either let Garland be confirmed in the lame-duck session or renominated in January.

Obviously, if Hillary is elected with a Republican Senate, there would be no choice but to push for Garland (whether in the lame-duck or in January).

[DC Al Fine]

I voted yes because the poor guy seems like a reasonable man.  He is an older man, but he can still live a long time.  If she wants to choose someone else, I'd suggest an Asian - Jacqueline Nguyen, Denny Chin, Goodwin Liu... someone historic.  She can also choose Sri Srinivasan.

If we're going for diversity, there's not a single Protestant on the court...

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I have hard time believing any party would seriously invoke the nuclear option. Both would probably prefeer to retain a possibility to filibuster in the future.

[IceSpear]

No. If Dems take the Senate, we should nuke the filibuster on the first day and proceed with shoving through however many Justices and judges we get the opportunity to appoint, with them being as progressive and as young as possible. If the GOP refuses to compromise in governance with the party that is clearly the majority in this country, then we should focus on reshaping and eliminating as many built-in advantages of the minority party as possible.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

I have hard time believing any party would seriously invoke the nuclear option. Both would probably prefeer to retain a possibility to filibuster in the future.

Agreed. That's why Hillary is likely to take this opportunity if presented her. Scalia for Garland is a trade most Democrats would love to take, especially since she'll definitely get to replace Ginsburg and Breyer with little to no opposition.