Again, I don't think this is the beginning of another el foldo, because these two elderly gentlemen know what would happen to them and their Senate majority if they caved on something as incendiary as surrendering the Right's last line of defense against unchecked Marxism-Alinkyism when this time they hold all the cards.
But by the same token, why are they meeting with The One about this at all when they have to know that this is the first suspicion that is going to instantly pop into the minds of the conservative (what's left of it, anyway) grassroots?:
Top Senate Republicans Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley said Thursday that they will emphasize to Barack Obama next week that the next commander-in-chief should put forth the nominee to succeed Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.
"We look forward to reiterating to him directly that the American people will be heard and the next Supreme Court justice will be determined once the elections are complete," the senators said. [emphasis added]
At least they put one declarative in their rhetoric - "will" over "should". The latter makes its sound like they're trying to persuade The One to their point of view, which is a fool's errand. "Will" is telling him what's actually going to happen - or not happen - and that that is up to them, not him.
Which beggingly gets back to the question of why they're talking to him about this at all. Why go to him? Why grant him any courtesy that he never grants to them? Show him only as much respect as he reciprocates - which is to say, none whatsoever. Have some self-respect for a long-overdue change.
Incidentally, you know the Souter-esque "centrist," Sri Srinivasan, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals judge whose name bobbed to the top if the ol' tank last week? Yeah, he really isn't a 'centrist" at all:
You mentioned Judge Sri Srinivasan as a moderate falling somewhere between Souter and Kennedy. He is not likely to be a moderate. In fact, so far, his record as a judge on the D.C. Circuit has been somewhat to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsburg back when she sat on the same Circuit. She became more liberal once elevated to the Supreme Court, where she faced no chance of reversal. My guess is that any Obama appointee will become more liberal once elevated to the Supreme Court, due to the fact that Supreme Court decisions are final and can’t be reversed. [emphases added]
Judge Srinivasan has ruled in favor of government requirements on commercial speech, that the government can broadly make decisions based on race and gender, and that the Labor Commissariat can impose wage and hour regulation on home-health-care providers, among other things.
Concludes the "conservative legal mind":
Ironically, the supposedly liberal judges who were put on the D.C. Circuit after him — to pack the D.C. Circuit after the filibuster was curbed — have proven more willing to question government regulations than he is. They’ve joined rulings to strike down certain gun regulations in Washington, D.C.
Moreover, even liberal district judges in D.C. appointed by Obama rule against the Obama administration more often than Judge Srinivasan, like Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruling against the NLRB about posting requirements; and against EPA over Clean Water Act coal regulations, where she was later reversed by the D.C. Circuit; and Judge James Boasberg ruling against the IRS when it attempted to license tax preparers.
As I said the other day, Obama seeks a radical hard-Left SCOTUS pick. Senators McConnell and Grassley don't need to pilgrim themselves to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue to tell him and Judge Srinivasan or Reichsfuhreress Lynch or Hillary Clinton or whoever his nominee ends up being to get stuffed. Let their stony, frosty silence do their talking for them.
And spare the base an unneeded extra case of the vapors.