President Obama's selection of Merrick Garland as his nominee to fill the seat of the late Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court is something of a surprise, given Garland's reputation as a moderate and, most important, his age. Garland is 63, meaning he would likely spend only 10 or 15 years on the court if he is confirmed.
Of course, he may not be confirmed, since Republicans have made clear that they will refuse to hold hearings or votes on any nominee Obama offers, and they've said they'll even refuse to meet the nominee. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reiterated that Wednesday. So there's a clear political strategy behind this nomination on the White House's part.
But there's also a way in which Garland could end up actually making it to the court — not because the White House managed to outmaneuver Republicans, but because Republicans decided that confirming him was the best of their options.
First, let's look at the White House's thinking. Of course, the Obama administration is going to say that this decision was made purely on Garland's merits and that politics never entered into it, that Garland was picked because he's eminently qualified and well-respected by both Democrats and Republicans. Garland may have all the admirable qualities Obama spoke of on Wednesday, but it's also true that he is the hardest pick for Republicans to oppose. He's probably the most moderate of the names that were mentioned, and when you combine that with his age (and the fact that he's a white man), Republicans won't be able to say that Obama is trying to appoint some radical leftist who will pull the court far to the left for the next 30 or 40 years.
That means that Garland is the one whose appointment most clearly portrays Republicans as obstructionists when they refuse to consider him. That not only will help Hillary Clinton when she argues that Republicans are unreasonable and irresponsible, but it also will put some vulnerable Senate Republicans in uncomfortable positions, particularly Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania — all of whom face tough challenges in the fall. So while it may not have a transformative effect on the election, Garland's nomination could, at least by a bit, increase the chances both that Clinton is elected president and that Democrats will be able to take back the Senate.
The White House is also probably assuming that Republicans will oppose Garland, as they've promised. Garland already has had a full career, and this is doubtless his last opportunity to ascend to the Supreme Court, so he may have been more willing than other potential nominees to go through this process, with the small chance that he actually would be confirmed.
But might he actually be confirmed? The answer is yes.
Here's how it might happen:
