GAG. (And Paul Krugman is just so, so mystified that so many progressives support Sanders. Be mystified no longer, dear professor.)
Dan Crawford gave me the news this morning before I’d already learned of it. He emailed me with the subject title: “Merrick Garland…here we go!” He linked, without comment, to the NYT article on the announcement.
UGH. I guess the idea is that there just aren’t enough super-establishment Supreme Court justices already. We definitely need one more.
And Krugman is just so, so mystified that so many progressives support Sanders.
I WANT TO SCREAM.
I’ll post at more length later today; I don’t have time right now. But at the risk of drawing attention to the attention of the Secret Service, in an unpleasant way, I will take the time right now to say to Obama: Drop dead.*
And I’ll take the time to note this: The title of the NYT article is “Obama Chooses Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court.” Its subtitle? “Appeals Court Judge Is Respected by G.O.P.” Well, the G.O.P. that the Washington in-crowd hasn’t noticed isn’t all that popular right now with, um, some of the G.O.P.
*Na-na-no; this is said facetiously. The drop-dead part, that is. Please, Secret Service. Really. I don’t like Joe Biden all that much, either.
UPDATE: This blog post in Slate by someone named Michael Gerhardt, whom I’d never heard of before and who is not identified there by anything other than his name, makes me cringe.
This guy’s bottom line: Yup, can’t be a merit nominee to the Supreme Court unless you’ve been an intrinsic part of the Centrist Establishment in Washington for, say, several decades.
And interestingly narrow definition of merit, wouldn’t you say?
Okay, well, actually he is identified by more than his name. He’s a Centrist Establishment person. Just an educated guess, but still ….
Fittingly, the post title is, “Merrick Garland deserves to be on the Supreme Court.” Because what matters is what Merrick Garland deserves, not what the multitude millions of people whom the Supreme Court pretends don’t exist. Or just aren’t worth the time of such an august group. Or even a moment’s thought.
Then again, there is this hopeful note, also from Slate. It’s by Jim Newell, Slate’s main political analyst.
Added 3/16 at 6:32 p.m.
UPDATE TO UPDATE: Calmer now. Reread Jim Newell’s awesome article and agree with every word of it. Including why Obama almost nominated Garland to fill John Paul Stevens’ seat for real. Which pretty much sums up why I can’t stand Obama and don’t want a third Obama term in the person of a chameleon.
Added 3/16 at 7:10 p.m.
PS: Greg Sargent writes:
I’ll bet that a big part of his selection was that Garland was willing to go through the process knowing he probably won’t get to actually serve on the court, while a younger judge who could have another chance later might not want to.
In thinking about it more, I’m betting that that was a very big part. As in, none of the others would accept the nomination, and told Obama so.
Repubs apparently now think they can have the last laugh. Senate Repubs reportedly now are considering whether to confirm during the lame duck session after the election if Clinton wins. But of course, then Garland would be expected to withdraw if Obama does not withdraw his name saying that Clinton and the new (Democratic-controlled) Senate should handle it.
This post is starting to feel not like a blog post but like a blog.
Added 3/16 at 8:36 p.m.
PS TO PS: Yup. It’s been officially confirmed by go-to-Centrist Ruth Marcus: Garland resoundingly (her word) deserves to be confirmed, and what really matters is what Garland deserves.
Her piece is titled “A Supreme Court nominee too good for the GOP to ignore.” I’m not kidding. That’s its title. You really have to read this thing. The whole thing; you don’t want to miss the part about her running into him on the street after she became a well-known Washington Post journalist. Her piece apparently is not intended as a parody of a Washington insider’s view, although it does double duty as that.
Yup. This post is a blog unto itself.
Added 3/16 at 9:02 p.m.