General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Cheering on a moderate SCOTUS choice [View all]1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)part of my reasoning is because Garland is a good, fair and non-ideological jurist.
But my opinion is, also, based on how it will affect the republican party, particularly, republicans in the Senate. Vulnerable Senators are faced with a no win situation ... If they hold to their promise to not give the moderate, consensus confirmed nominee, who was good enough for the Court of Appeals for a hearing, they piss off a majority of the electorate.
If they give him a hearing; but, don't confirm the moderate, consensus confirmed nominee who was good enough for the Court of Appeals, they have to provide an explanation that can overcome their widely publicized, partisan resistance to doing their job ... and they risk pissing off a majority of the electorate.
If they give the moderate, consensus confirmed nominee who was good enough for the Court of Appeals a hearing and can't come up with a compelling reason to vote "No" that overcomes their widely publicized, partisan resistance, they get a Justice that will, at a minimum, swing the SCOTUS to the Left.
Because picking a "true Progressive minded judge" would have validated the republican's reason for not holding a hearing, and even if they did, in this climate, a "true Progressive minded judge" would never be confirmed.
Because we live in the real world. And in this real world, we have a divided government, ergo ... we don't get all of what we want.