Black Mamba
Member
I've spent all morning trying to figure out Obama's pick of Garland.
On one hand, I believed he was going to pick a young, moderate minority. The GOP's refusal to allow them to even go through hearings would have been disastrous.
But he didn't. He picked a older, white moderate. Seems weird. But after thinking, reading opinions of others, and knowing Obama, here's what I think is happening (others here may have already espoused this but I haven't read the thread...and this is certainly not my own invention).
1. Obama now believes Trump is the nominee and believes Hillary/Senate is a lock. That means Hillary will be able to push through anyone she wants. And they might not even have to nuke the filibuster to do it. Hear me out. The GOP has clearly argued that the next President should get their choice, essentially. And this election it's figuratively on the ballot unlike in other Presidential years. And if the GOP doesn't go along with whomever is Hillary's nominee, nuking the filibuster will look agreeable given the context of the obstruction. That's a win/win for Hillary.
2. Obama firmly believes whomever he nominates will be shut down indefinitely. Here's why this is VERY important. Now, we thought that this would mean that minority moderate would get a shot but they didn't. And it now makes sense. If you nominate someone young and qualified only to be shot down, you are screwing them over big some. Sri losing now would mean no future chance. He would be put through a lot, as well. Obama is both loyal and compassionate on a personal level. I do not believe he wanted to use this nomination to screw the future of a potential candidate, especially a minority. In the grand scheme of things, it might have made more sense, but these are real people with real feelings.
So that left Obama looking for a sacrificial lamb. And Garland fits that bill. I don't think being white actually mattered as much. Obama had to find someone who was moderate with amazing credentials and who the Senate, including Republicans, had already confirmed. Well, that's Garland. Appointed by Clinton, confirmed by a GOP Senate, Chief Justice of the [essentially] 2nd highest court, impeccable private and public service and education, there really is no way to fault him sans some scandal no one is aware exists.
And Garland is 63. He's old. Like, really old for the SCOTUS. Before today, Garland must have assumed he reached the peak of his career. Not that that isn't an extremely high peak, but he must have never thought he'd made the SCOTUS after being passed over the previous 2 times. Why would a President nominate someone at the age of 63? Under normal circumstances, Garland despite his qualifications would be passed over due to age. And that's why his age matters. Garland knows he had no chance to make the Court before and he still has a lifetime appointment at the DC Court so he can "take one for the team." He can be put up as a sacrificial lamb knowing his career path has not been ruined. He will just do what he always expected to do. And hell, maybe there's even a 5% chance of being confirmed and this will be his only shot so he might as well do it.
Now, what if the election goes as we believe with a Hillary and Senate Democrat sweep? Then maybe the GOP confirms him in December avoid Hillary's pick? Eh, there's not really enough time to have the confirmation hearings in time and the newcomers will want to weight in. That makes it January with only a couple weeks before Obama is gone.
I fully expect that come November around or after the election, Garland will withdraw his name from the nomination. He'll go down as a footnote but not really much other than that, he'll return to the job he always assumed he'd be doing going forward, and Hillary will be in a very strong position to nominate someone further to the left.
I'm pretty sure Obama has coordinated with the Hillary camp, here. And I'm certain Garland accepted this role knowing what's going to happen.
I really now believe Obama went with Garland over someone like Sri out of respect for Sri and the others. Obama put them above partisan politics.
On one hand, I believed he was going to pick a young, moderate minority. The GOP's refusal to allow them to even go through hearings would have been disastrous.
But he didn't. He picked a older, white moderate. Seems weird. But after thinking, reading opinions of others, and knowing Obama, here's what I think is happening (others here may have already espoused this but I haven't read the thread...and this is certainly not my own invention).
1. Obama now believes Trump is the nominee and believes Hillary/Senate is a lock. That means Hillary will be able to push through anyone she wants. And they might not even have to nuke the filibuster to do it. Hear me out. The GOP has clearly argued that the next President should get their choice, essentially. And this election it's figuratively on the ballot unlike in other Presidential years. And if the GOP doesn't go along with whomever is Hillary's nominee, nuking the filibuster will look agreeable given the context of the obstruction. That's a win/win for Hillary.
2. Obama firmly believes whomever he nominates will be shut down indefinitely. Here's why this is VERY important. Now, we thought that this would mean that minority moderate would get a shot but they didn't. And it now makes sense. If you nominate someone young and qualified only to be shot down, you are screwing them over big some. Sri losing now would mean no future chance. He would be put through a lot, as well. Obama is both loyal and compassionate on a personal level. I do not believe he wanted to use this nomination to screw the future of a potential candidate, especially a minority. In the grand scheme of things, it might have made more sense, but these are real people with real feelings.
So that left Obama looking for a sacrificial lamb. And Garland fits that bill. I don't think being white actually mattered as much. Obama had to find someone who was moderate with amazing credentials and who the Senate, including Republicans, had already confirmed. Well, that's Garland. Appointed by Clinton, confirmed by a GOP Senate, Chief Justice of the [essentially] 2nd highest court, impeccable private and public service and education, there really is no way to fault him sans some scandal no one is aware exists.
And Garland is 63. He's old. Like, really old for the SCOTUS. Before today, Garland must have assumed he reached the peak of his career. Not that that isn't an extremely high peak, but he must have never thought he'd made the SCOTUS after being passed over the previous 2 times. Why would a President nominate someone at the age of 63? Under normal circumstances, Garland despite his qualifications would be passed over due to age. And that's why his age matters. Garland knows he had no chance to make the Court before and he still has a lifetime appointment at the DC Court so he can "take one for the team." He can be put up as a sacrificial lamb knowing his career path has not been ruined. He will just do what he always expected to do. And hell, maybe there's even a 5% chance of being confirmed and this will be his only shot so he might as well do it.
Now, what if the election goes as we believe with a Hillary and Senate Democrat sweep? Then maybe the GOP confirms him in December avoid Hillary's pick? Eh, there's not really enough time to have the confirmation hearings in time and the newcomers will want to weight in. That makes it January with only a couple weeks before Obama is gone.
I fully expect that come November around or after the election, Garland will withdraw his name from the nomination. He'll go down as a footnote but not really much other than that, he'll return to the job he always assumed he'd be doing going forward, and Hillary will be in a very strong position to nominate someone further to the left.
I'm pretty sure Obama has coordinated with the Hillary camp, here. And I'm certain Garland accepted this role knowing what's going to happen.
I really now believe Obama went with Garland over someone like Sri out of respect for Sri and the others. Obama put them above partisan politics.
