Why Should Trump Nominate Merrick Garland, Even Hillary Wouldn't

In a statement meant to appeal to precisely nobody, Chuck Schumer urged President Trump to nominate Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer had a private phone call with President Trump earlier this week, during which he pressured the president to nominate federal judge Merrick Garland to replace Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, reports the Washington Post's Seung Min Kim and Robert Costa. 

The bottom line: The suggestion is absurd, and Schumer knows it. Trump, who successfully worked with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to block Merrick Garland when the last Supreme Court vacancy opened up, has repeatedly said that he will choose a conservative judge to replace Kennedy. Trump has also already narrowed down his short list of candidates to three, and Garland is far from any of them.

And why should Trump nominate Garland when even Hillary had made it fairly clear that she wouldn't?

One of Senator Flake's many laughable moments came when he urged Republicans to hold hearings on Garland, Obama's nominee, if Hillary won. Had that happened, then yes hearings would no doubt have been held as the Biden Rule would have been moot. But they wouldn't have been for Garland.

Obama only nominated Garland in the hope of getting some Republicans on board. Garland was a far cry from the radical likes of Sotomayor and Kagan. He was never a serious pick.

So whom is Schumer appealing to here? The left doesn't want Garland. There's no conceivable reason for Trump to nominate a left of center candidate when he can still get a conservative through.

The Dems have been waving the Merrick Garland bloody shirt. But they never wanted him either.

Share