The Supreme Court nominee should be Merrick Garland.
I'm not convinced whoever is nominated by this administration that that person should be confirmed. If it means there are only eight Justices on the court for four years, so be it. (I'm not saying that's what should happen, just that I haven't been convinced to the contrary.)
My friend said the risk is that Republicans might change Senate rules and vote for the "nuclear option" for the Supreme Court, and require only 51 votes. Yes, that's the risk.
Merrick Garland should be on the Supreme Court.
The fact that there is an opening is perhaps the most outrageous, despicable, galling, horrific, disgraceful action by any party in the United States Senate in my lifetime.
All the "arguments" by Republicans to try and justify their actions are meaningless, and there's no point in trying to refute them because it only gives validity to the reasons for being worth refuting.
It was the last year of Obama's presidency. The people should decide who gets nominated. We should follow the "Biden Rule" (after we totally misinterpret it first...). Obama was a lame duck. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah....
Pick up a copy of the U.S. Constitution and show me where it supports that defense -- any defense -- and then we have a starting point to talk.
A full year before we had a new president, the President of the United States had a Supreme Court opening to fill and nominated a man as was his constitutional obligation. And it wasn't that Republicans wouldn't confirm him -- they wouldn't even meet with him.
Let me repeat that: Republicans wouldn't even meet with him. Pull out your Constitution on that one before you start arguing.
Republicans wouldn't even meet with him.
They didn't even try to make it seem like they were supposedly following the Constitution. And anyone who tries to "defend" it on any legal, Constitutional ground is required to swear at the pain of eternal damnation in hell that they would have felt exactly the same if the situation was reversed and a Republican had been president, and would support Democrats doing exactly the same if such a situation ever happened in the future. And if they can't do that, then there's a corner over there for them to sit down and keep quiet whenever the topic comes up again.
There is only one argument: "We did it because we didn't want a Supreme Court Justice nominated by Barack Obama, and we were in the majority and could block it without any Constitutional backing."
What do I think of the nominee?
It should be Merrick Garland.
There will be some resolution to this. I have no idea what it will be. I suspect it will get approved. But I don't know that. And if so, don't know when. I only know one thing.
It should be Merrick Garland. And that's the only honest answer.