If Senate Pachyderms were to cave and grant hearings to Garland, much less confirm him, after the stand they've taken against hearings of any way, shape, or form, that would be like pouring napalm on the Trumplican "BURN THIS MFer DOWN!" raging five-alarm fire. The majority only regained in 2014 is history regardless, but a reversal of this magnitude would turn a six-seat loss into ten, or fifteen, twenty, maybe a total shutout. Whatever you people think of the "establishment," they're neither stupid nor crazy. They'll follow through and see it to the end....which means the November election.
After Hillary or Weekend Bernie is president-elect, and the GOP's Senate losses are held to a recoverable level, McConnell will then bring up the Garland nomination in the post-election "lame duck" session, because, as noted above, he will be the best Scalia replacement we're going to get. [emphasis added]
- Me, two days ago
As your ruler, benevolent despot, and fount and rabbi of conservatism, constitutionalism, Christianity and common sense, I do not forbid you all to disagree with me on anything, my friends. I merely respectfully suggest that doing so is not in your best interests if you want to avoid a whole lot of embarrassment and actually learn a thing or two.
And in this case, it really shouldn't have been all that difficult to prognosticate:
Republican senators on Thursday raised the possibility they would confirm Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland[, assuming] the U.S. president leaves office in January [when] Democrats retain the White House in the November 8th election.
Garland began the customary meetings with senators that kick off the confirmation process. He visited the offices of Democrats Harry [G]Reid and Patrick Leahy a day after Obama nominated the [liberal] appeals court judge and former prosecutor to replace conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who died on February 13th.
Republicans are concerned that [when] Hillary Clinton, Obama's former [commissar] of state....wins the presidential election, she [will] send the Senate a far more liberal nominee after taking office....
Utah's Orrin Hatch and Arizona's Jeff Flake, Republican members of the Judiciary Committee that would hold any confirmation hearings, said it was possible the Senate could act on Garland's nomination in a "lame-duck" session after the election and before a new president and Congress take office in January.
"I would choose a less liberal nominee. And this nominee is a less liberal nominee than we would get, I'm quite certain, with Hillary Clinton," Flake told reporters.
Trumpmania has made this outcome a fait accompli, folks. Which makes anybody who claims to want to keep the SCOTUS out of leftwingnut hands yet could possibly support Donald Trump under any circumstances ....let's just say a sufferer of "schizotypal personality disorder," and leave it at that.