MERRICK GARLAND: HE'S NO JUSTICE SCALIA, OBAMA'S 3RD TERM

MERRICK GARLAND: HE'S NO JUSTICE SCALIA, OBAMA'S 3RD TERM

GARLAND WAS APPOINTED AS AN APPELLATE JUDGE IN 1997 BY BILL CLINTON.

Sources: CNN, Washington Times, Youtube

February 12, 2016 Conservative SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia was Murdered.

Wednesday, March 16, 2016 Pres Obama nominated  Scalia's replacement, Appellate Court Judge Merrick Brian Garland, a LIBERAL appointed by former president BILL CLINTON in 1997.

Due to this being a presidential election year, the GOP-controlled Senate has already refused to confirm Garland.

Scalia's open seat places the 2016 presidential election in a dangerous predicament.

If Garland is not confirmed, in the event of a Bush v Gore-style election battle the SCOTUS will remain deadlocked.

A deadlocked SCOTUS court in an election results battle presents two possible scenarios:

1).  A long drawn out, expensive litigation until a decision is made.

2) Obama is legally allowed to remain President until a decision is made.

Thus Obama may get the 3rd term he has been hoping for.

***** Jeffrey Toobin: Sure, Merrick Garland is qualified, but this is politics

Story highlights

• Jeffrey Toobin: Supreme Court nominee is unlikely to survive political maelstrom 
• Toobin says Republicans will likely not bend and allow hearing or vote on Merrick Garland 
• Cost of allowing Obama pick who could tip court is too great for GOP, he says.
• Should Merrick Garland's friends be offering him congratulations -- or condolences? After a distinguished career in public service, Garland has been tapped for the legal profession's highest honor -- to be a Supreme Court justice. But President Barack Obama's nomination thrusts Garland into a political maelstrom he is unlikely to survive -- at least as a judge on the nation's highest court.

Garland, who is 63, has had a storybook career. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School (like the justice he would be replacing, Antonin Scalia), was clerk for a pair of legendary judges (Henry Friendly and William Brennan), and a partner at a prominent law firm -- which he gave up to work as a line prosecutor in the District of Columbia.

He was a Justice Department official and then judge for the last 18 years on the second most important court in the nation. 

The issue of Garland's qualifications to be on the Supreme Court is beyond question.

But Republicans have said that because Obama is in the last year of his term, the seat on the court should be determined by the voters -- who will be choosing the next president. They have vowed, in very explicit terms, to refuse to give Garland a hearing or a vote. 

Most Republican senators will refuse even to meet with him. And while Republican senators have so far avoided attacking Garland's qualifications, conservative interest groups are already pledging to run television advertisements portraying the judge as a mindless liberal and Obama stooge.

It's all very ... political. But the Supreme Court has always been as much a political body as a legal one. Supporters of the President, and of Garland, are seeking to impose the maximum amount of political pain on their opponents in the Senate.

Democrats have already started calling out their Republican counterparts as do-nothing obstructionists. This is how the process will play out, and the outcome will depend on the politics. Do Republicans stick with their base and refuse a vote? Or do they cave under criticism and allow Garland to proceed through the process?

The odds strongly favor continuing Republican solidarity. The seat is the tipping point to a Democratic majority on the court, and the GOP will put up with a lot of heat to prevent the loss of the court for a generation. 

True, a President Hillary Clinton might pick someone even more liberal, but better to risk a fight later than lose one now. When it comes to the Supreme Court, political calculation is nothing new. There were no good old days.