Here on Daily Kos, Joan has called President Barack Obama’s appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, “the smart choice for boxing Republicans in and demonstrating just how extreme and partisan they're being in their blockade.” And that’s certainly true! Having praised Garland in the past, Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch praised him just last week, “[Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man [but] he probably won't do that because this appointment is about the election.” Oops, he sure looks stupid now as he continues to refuse to hold hearings.
But as Kerry noted just a short time later, “Progressives could have had three people on the ballot come November—the nominee, VP, and the SCOTUS pick who never got a vote. If that person had looked in any way like the group of voters who form what's become known as "the Obama coalition," she or he could have symbolized the very future of our nation that Republicans are actively working so hard to deny.”
Let’s game this out:
1. You choose someone to showcase GOP radicalism. This was Obama’s approach. Pick a moderate jurist who’s been previously praised by Senate Republicans. It makes them look bad! Less crazy Republican voters, turned off by Donald Trump, decide to hold their noses and vote for Hillary Clinton because their party is a mess. But nothing stops them from voting for the rest of the Republican slate on the ballot.
2. You choose someone to excite the liberal base. You don’t peel away Republicans, but who gives a shit anyway. We don’t need them for the presidential race, and if they turn out, they hurt us downballot. But you excite liberals, help heal the party in this primary season, and that benefits us short- and long-term both up and down the ballot.
The right choice is so fucking obvious I can barely believe Obama did what he did. And this is why Clinton will ultimately be a better president than Obama—she will never try to appease Republicans or try to win them over. She knows they hate her guts, and she’s under no illusions she can change that. And if you have any doubts that a Hillary pick would be any different, let’s go back to hatch:
Note that 1) he seems to have conceded that his party won’t win the White House, because why would he want to resolve this with a Republican president headed in? And 2) he’d rather take Merrick than whoever Clinton might nominate, because there’s no way her choice would be less liberal.
Now, thanks to Obama, we can’t have our three-headed presidential ticket this November (Clinton, her VP pick, and the Supreme Court nominee). In other words, Obama took the electoral politics out of this nomination, precisely at a time that Republicans have done nothing but let electoral politics guide them.
Now perhaps Obama anticipates the GOP obstruction, and Garland let himself be used as a sacrificial lamb to embarrass Republicans. Maybe a month or two down the line he withdraws his name from consideration, at which point the president appoints our real liberal champion. Maybe it’s that famous 11th dimensional chess, and if so, we’ll all applaud.
But until that happens, this is absolutely a missed opportunity.