Merrick Garland: Supreme Political Pawn

United States Supreme Court building. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are currently marching on toward their inevitable November showdown, making news every day with violent rallies, raucous (and sometimes raunchy) debates and new allegations based on old ones.  President Barack Obama has been making news of his own in his final year, occasionally stealing the spotlight from the candidates who want his job.

This is one of those times.  The President has nominated Merrick Garland, an appeals court judge in the District of Columbia, to be the next U.S. Supreme Court justice.  He would replace Antonin Scalia, who died a few weeks ago.

Even though, for all we know, Garland is a centrist (not to be confused with liberal) judge with an impressive record in his decisions and in his dealings with others--and a great guy besides, he's going to have a rough time getting confirmed in the toxic political dump that Washington has become.  With Republicans in control of the Senate and still in shock over conservative icon Scalia's passing, they have vowed that there's no way in hell Garland would get a hearing, much less get confirmed.  Even if he is a nice guy.

This comes as no surprise, given the level of animosity GOP leaders have had toward Obama since before Day One of his presidency.  But do they really want to wait until after the election to add a ninth member to the Supreme Court, whether it's Garland or not?  What if the next President is Trump or Clinton--neither of whom Republicans are big fans of?

For the next few months, we're going to hear lots of political this-and-that over Garland's nomination spilling into the campaign?  We'll be hearing scintillating questions such as:  Does Garland have any skeletons in his closet?  How would he vote on Roe v. Wade, Citizens United and other hot-button cases?  What did he really think of replacing Scalia?  Is he just a pawn of the Democrats?

Obviously, if you want to be a Supreme Court justice, you have to have a thick skin.  If and when the Senate gets around to having hearings and then voting to confirm, Garland should be ready to show what he's got.  If he's rejected or decides this circus isn't worth his time, then Senate Republicans will have won themselves a hollow victory, and the Court will have to muddle along with eight justices for well into the next term.  You think the country deserves better than this?