Could republicans confirm Merrick Garland if HRC wins?

[rafta_rafta]

IF Hillary wins, could/would senate republicans move to confirm Merrick Garland's SC nomination before she takes office?

[SWE]

Yes.

[dspNY]

They almost certainly will because Hillary will ram through a super-liberal justice in a possible Democratic Senate to make the Republicans regret their stubbornness

[Ronnie]

Such a move would be incredibly cynical, but what else is new?  Sure, why not.

[Person Man]

They pretty much have to.

[Reluctant Republican]

I would expect Obama to withdraw the nomination and declare that upon further deliberation, he's decided the GOP are right and the next president should get to pick their own justice.

[Dereich]

Senate Republican staffers don't expect there to be enough time for it in the lame duck session; they have more important things to do. The priority is Omnibus spending bill>TPP>Doing something with Garland. One staffer I spoke to put the chance of TPP passing at 5% and on hearings for Garland even starting at 0.1%.

[Andrew]

I think they will confirm Garland right away, because they know there's no way they will ever let a Clinton nominee come to a vote, and they won't want to have to defend themselves for letting a vacancy stay open for more than four (or eight) years.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Would be amazing if Obama withdrew Garland's nomination the day after Clinton wins.

And how would Obama justify jerking around a qualified justice like this when he's condemned the Republicans for doing the same?

[SteveRogers]

Senate Republican staffers don't expect there to be enough time for it in the lame duck session; they have more important things to do. The priority is Omnibus spending bill>TPP>Doing something with Garland. One staffer I spoke to put the chance of TPP passing at 5% and on hearings for Garland even starting at 0.1%.

The Senate is perfectly capable of tackling multiple high profile issues in the lame duck session when they feel like it. Look at what they were able to accomplish in 2010.

[Cory]

I would expect Obama to withdraw the nomination and declare that upon further deliberation, he's decided the GOP are right and the next president should get to pick their own justice.

He better do this. Anything else is just being a pussy and not knowing how to play hardball.

[Mr. Smith]

I would expect Obama to withdraw the nomination and declare that upon further deliberation, he's decided the GOP are right and the next president should get to pick their own justice.

He better do this. Anything else is just being a pussy and not knowing how to play hardball.

That only works if the Dems take the Senate.

If they don't, watch The Turtle look for ways to use his majority to decisively block  anyone and everyone Hillary nominates.

 

[Dereich]

Senate Republican staffers don't expect there to be enough time for it in the lame duck session; they have more important things to do. The priority is Omnibus spending bill>TPP>Doing something with Garland. One staffer I spoke to put the chance of TPP passing at 5% and on hearings for Garland even starting at 0.1%.

The Senate is perfectly capable of tackling multiple high profile issues in the lame duck session when they feel like it. Look at what they were able to accomplish in 2010.

Sure they can, when they plan it in advance. Arranging for the senators, media, and nominee to be free and in DC  at the same time and doing so while working around other affairs of state takes planning in advance. As of now this planning just flat out isn't going on. There's no desire in the leadership to rush a Garland confirmation through the lame duck and the longer this persists the harder and harder arranging it would be if they DID decide to rush it. It's not happening.

[Sir Mohamed]

Almost certainly yes, especially if Dems take back the senate. The last thing the GOP wants is a really liberal judge. However, it would be interesting, if President Obama withdraws the nomination after the election (though unlikely).

[Torie]

I tend to doubt it. The Pubs would rather keep the issue alive. And I don't expect the Dems to take over the Senate anyway at this point. Moreover, Manchin may well oppose Garland. He has mused that he has a problem with the guy, and he is up for re-election in 2018.. So it may well be that Hillary will have to nominate someone who is a bone fide moderate, or the stalemate will continue indefinitely. Both sides know the stakes are high on this one.

[Person Man]

I tend to doubt it. The Pubs would rather keep the issue alive. And I don't expect the Dems to take over the Senate anyway at this point. Moreover, Manchin may well oppose Garland. He has mused that he has a problem with the guy, and he is up for re-election in 2018.. So it may well be that Hillary will have to nominate someone who is a bone fide moderate, or the stalemate will continue indefinitely. Both sides know the stakes are high on this one.

Eventually, I think that confirmation will be a condition of keeping the Government open if Clinton wins and still Republicans refuse.

[Torie]

I tend to doubt it. The Pubs would rather keep the issue alive. And I don't expect the Dems to take over the Senate anyway at this point. Moreover, Manchin may well oppose Garland. He has mused that he has a problem with the guy, and he is up for re-election in 2018.. So it may well be that Hillary will have to nominate someone who is a bone fide moderate, or the stalemate will continue indefinitely. Both sides know the stakes are high on this one.

Eventually, I think that confirmation will be a condition of keeping the Government open if Clinton wins and still Republicans refuse.

Clinton shutting down the government due to an extraneous issue will work for her politically about as well as it did for the Pubs when they went down that road.

[Person Man]

I tend to doubt it. The Pubs would rather keep the issue alive. And I don't expect the Dems to take over the Senate anyway at this point. Moreover, Manchin may well oppose Garland. He has mused that he has a problem with the guy, and he is up for re-election in 2018.. So it may well be that Hillary will have to nominate someone who is a bone fide moderate, or the stalemate will continue indefinitely. Both sides know the stakes are high on this one.

Eventually, I think that confirmation will be a condition of keeping the Government open if Clinton wins and still Republicans refuse.

Clinton shutting down the government due to an extraneous issue will work for her politically about as well as it did for the Pubs when they went down that road.

...but Obama has nothing to lose.

[Torie]

I tend to doubt it. The Pubs would rather keep the issue alive. And I don't expect the Dems to take over the Senate anyway at this point. Moreover, Manchin may well oppose Garland. He has mused that he has a problem with the guy, and he is up for re-election in 2018.. So it may well be that Hillary will have to nominate someone who is a bone fide moderate, or the stalemate will continue indefinitely. Both sides know the stakes are high on this one.

Eventually, I think that confirmation will be a condition of keeping the Government open if Clinton wins and still Republicans refuse.

Clinton shutting down the government due to an extraneous issue will work for her politically about as well as it did for the Pubs when they went down that road.

...but Obama has nothing to lose.

I would be amazed if Obama did that.

[Person Man]

I tend to doubt it. The Pubs would rather keep the issue alive. And I don't expect the Dems to take over the Senate anyway at this point. Moreover, Manchin may well oppose Garland. He has mused that he has a problem with the guy, and he is up for re-election in 2018.. So it may well be that Hillary will have to nominate someone who is a bone fide moderate, or the stalemate will continue indefinitely. Both sides know the stakes are high on this one.

Eventually, I think that confirmation will be a condition of keeping the Government open if Clinton wins and still Republicans refuse.

Clinton shutting down the government due to an extraneous issue will work for her politically about as well as it did for the Pubs when they went down that road.

...but Obama has nothing to lose.

I would be amazed if Obama did that.

He has talked about becoming more aggressive once he leaves office. But yeah. I'm not holding my breath for it. We need 9 but this would definitely be a hail Mary.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Whoever shuts down the government loses the argument. The party's poll numbers get destroyed, at least temporarily. All that matters is who the public blames for inconveniencing them.

Neither Obama nor Clinton was ever going to blackmail the other party into a shutdown based on a separate issue.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

If we have any backbone, we will not confirm any justice who supports keeping Roe v. Wade, even if that means letting the vacancy stay open indefinitely.  We don't have to sit on them.  Voting them down after hearings would work too.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

If we have any backbone, we will not confirm any justice who supports keeping Roe v. Wade, even if that means letting the vacancy stay open indefinitely.  We don't have to sit on them.  Voting them down after hearings would work too.

This is how you starve a party, folks. SCOTUS will be a huge talking point for Dems, in Congress and for President. Is this really the optics you want?

[Person Man]

Whoever shuts down the government loses the argument. The party's poll numbers get destroyed, at least temporarily. All that matters is who the public blames for inconveniencing them.

Neither Obama nor Clinton was ever going to blackmail the other party into a shutdown based on a separate issue.

The longer it is before the next election the better. Its Republicans' own damn fault that they thought that they were being cute and edgy.

[Angel of Death]

What about the Democrats in the Senate? Wouldn't it be funny if they were to run out the clock on Obama's nomination?