Merrick Garland---if Hillary Wins and the Senate Flips

I have always thought that Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court was nothing but a political move.  While Garland is "supremely" qualified, he is too moderate for either Barack Obama's or Hillary Clinton's tastes.  Don't be surprised if his nomination is pulled by Obama if Hillary wins, thereby leaving the nomination process in her hands.  If the Senate flips to Democratic control, there will be nothing stopping her from seating a young, far left nominee that will affect the high court for decades to come.

Both Obama and Hillary are very aware of what the Supreme Court means to an extremely liberal administration.  The very left-leaning Obama and his "pen" actions on executive orders have yielded just a 45% win rate in the court. Compare that to an average win rate of more than 60% for all other administrations in the last 50 years.  Obama was so liberal that the 4 liberal Justices on the court sided with their conservative counterparts by handing down a total of 44 unanimous decisions against him.

The Republican Senate probably made a horrible tactical decision by not approving the appointment of Garland; especially since they have known for months that a potential loser like Trump was their party's nominee. Now, there is a distinct possibility that the first liberal court since before 1970, can wind up being more extreme than ever imagined.  At stake will be decisions on gun control, late term abortions, extreme air and clean water rulings, and every liberal direction Hillary Clinton can take us.  When she takes office, she will quickly begin her run for a second term, by showing her suppporters that she means to take care of business for them.  A more liberal Supreme Court will assist by not blocking her actions.

References:

Merrick Garland’s instinct for the middle could put him in the court’s most influential spot: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/merrick-garlands-instinct-is-for-the-middle/2016/03/16/59a82132-eb91-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html?tid=a_inl

What If the Supreme Court Were Liberal?: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/what-if-the-supreme-court-were-liberal/477018/

Obama Has Lost In The Supreme Court More Than Any Modern President: http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/06/obama-has-lost-in-the-supreme-court-more-than-any-modern-president/

After 45 years of conservative rulings, here’s what a liberal Supreme Court would do: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/after-45-years-of-conservative-rulings-heres-what-a-liberal-supreme-court-would-do/2016/02/19/efa63ad4-d589-11e5-b195-2e29a4e13425_story.html?utm_term=.457a9e4162ae

Is Merrick Garland a Political Pawn of Obama?

By all accounts, Barack Obama is the most liberal President of modern times. Proof of this, is in the fact that his record of defending his policies in the Supreme Court have placed him dead last among all Presidents since 1946.

So, when it came to replacing Justice Scalia on the nation's high court, it was expected that he would attempt to tilt it decidedly left with another very liberal Justice nomination.  But, no. Instead, he nominated a moderate: Merrick Garland.

So what gives?

Well, this is just another way for the President to embarrass the Republican-led Senate and the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.  In other words, it's politics.  By nominating an eminently qualified moderate, he can now sell the concept that McConnell and the rest of the GOP are being unreasonable if they fail to give Garland a hearing and a up and down vote.   Should they go through the motions of having a hearing, but reject Garland's appointment with a down vote, he can still continue to claim that the Republicans are being unreasonable.

In my opinion, I don't think Garland is the kind of jurist that Obama really wanted.   I'm sure that he wanted someone younger and one who would support more extreme liberal policies far into the future.  But Garland -- in an election year -- provides him with a unique political opportunity to attempt to return the control of the Senate to the Democrats.  If so, this would benefit the next President; should that President be a Democrat.  Similarly, if the next President is a Republican, a Democrat-led Senate would derail anything he might need done.  Obama sees this as a win-win for at least four more years after he leaves office.

References:

Obama has struggled at the Supreme Court: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/despite-this-weeks-victories-obama-has-struggled-at-the-supreme-court/

McConnell says Obama's Supreme Court nominee won't even have a vote after the election: http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-mcconnell-supreme-court-20160320-story.html

Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland has a record of restraint, not activism: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-garland-legal-analysis-20160318-story.html

Merrick Garland Is A 'Qualified' Supreme Court Nominee: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/03/16/merrick-garland-supreme-court-nominee-obama/#57b6b6a82d6a