Mitch McConnell and Merrick Garland - Another Piece of the Puzzle?

[Jimmy Higgins]

So anyway, the Republicans knew they were in trouble. Trump was headed to the nomination and no one in their right mind thought Trump had a chance. SCOTUS Justice Scalia passed away and Obama nominated a moderate Justice, Merrick Garland to replace Scalia. Then the weirdest shit happened.

The Republicans blocked Garland from even a hearing.

Risk verses benefit. It is a very important thing to consider when taking chances. The higher the risk, the better the benefit needs to be. So, we are left (at the time) scratching our heads. Merrick Garland is much more centrist than anyone Clinton would appoint. He is also older as well. After 8 years of Clinton, the Republicans very likely would have the White House and the ability to replace Garland. So the question is why would McConnell block the Centrist unless he knew something about the election.

The election was never supposed to be close. The polls were consistent about a Clinton victory and a Trump win just seemed unfathomable to all but Trump's deluded brown-shirters.

The trouble with suggesting McConnell would know about leaks from the Russians is that he blocks Garland in March. But it was also in March when Trump was aligning himself with Pro-Russia reps.

In March, Trump also announced a roster of foreign policy advisers that includes Page, an investment banker who has criticized the Obama administration for "fomenting" Yanukovych's ouster, which infuriated Putin. Page, who has likened the U.S. role in Ukraine to Russian meddling in Canada, has extensive business ties in Russia, and has lamented the impact of Western sanctions against Moscow related to Ukraine.

In May Trump would add Manafort as his Campaign Manager.

This is stepping into conspiracy theory territory, which is usually best suited to people with tin foil hats, but the question remains reasonable. Why take such a huge risk, when there was a much better short-term option?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

When the GOP started blocking Garland, I don't think anyone gave much credibility to the chance of Trump being the GOP nominee. I recall that the first question about it was when there were still 17 candidates on the stage and Trump was seen as a joke (in a "Oh my God, this guy is running for President" funny kind of joke as opposed to a "Oh my God, this guy is the President" scary kind of joke).

They knew that the Clinton campaign had significant weaknesses and whatever mainstream Republican ended up with the nomination had a decent chance against her. They knew it was a risk vs reward scenario, but it was a medium risk with a potentially high reward.

 

[KeepTalking]

When the GOP started blocking Garland, I don't think anyone gave much credibility to the chance of Trump being the GOP nominee. I recall that the first question about it was when there were still 17 candidates on the stage and Trump was seen as a joke (in a "Oh my God, this guy is running for President" funny kind of joke as opposed to a "Oh my God, this guy is the President" scary kind of joke).

They knew that the Clinton campaign had significant weaknesses and whatever mainstream Republican ended up with the nomination had a decent chance against her. They knew it was a risk vs reward scenario, but it was a medium risk with a potentially high reward.

Also, if Clinton did win the election, they knew they still had a couple of months to go ahead and vote Garland in. There really was no risk for them at all.

 

[Malintent]

The republicans blocked Obama's pick because it was Obama's pick. The republicans have been putting party before country for ages... I don't think it was part of any master plan, other than, "don't let the other team win, at any cost".

 

[funinspace]

When the GOP started blocking Garland, I don't think anyone gave much credibility to the chance of Trump being the GOP nominee. I recall that the first question about it was when there were still 17 candidates on the stage and Trump was seen as a joke (in a "Oh my God, this guy is running for President" funny kind of joke as opposed to a "Oh my God, this guy is the President" scary kind of joke).

They knew that the Clinton campaign had significant weaknesses and whatever mainstream Republican ended up with the nomination had a decent chance against her. They knew it was a risk vs reward scenario, but it was a medium risk with a potentially high reward.

Also, if Clinton did win the election, they knew they still had a couple of months to go ahead and vote Garland in. There really was no risk for them at all.

^Yup! The only risk was voter anger at Repug intransigence on everything. This was sort of a cherry on top of the rino pile, so the added risk on this front is also pretty low. Only now is the Party of No seeming to have a few issues actually running the country based upon a two character platform...

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So anyway, the Republicans knew they were in trouble. Trump was headed to the nomination and no one in their right mind thought Trump had a chance. SCOTUS Justice Scalia passed away and Obama nominated a moderate Justice, Merrick Garland to replace Scalia. Then the weirdest shit happened.

The Republicans blocked Garland from even a hearing.

Risk verses benefit. It is a very important thing to consider when taking chances. The higher the risk, the better the benefit needs to be. So, we are left (at the time) scratching our heads. Merrick Garland is much more centrist than anyone Clinton would appoint. He is also older as well. After 8 years of Clinton, the Republicans very likely would have the White House and the ability to replace Garland. So the question is why would McConnell block the Centrist unless he knew something about the election.

The election was never supposed to be close. The polls were consistent about a Clinton victory and a Trump win just seemed unfathomable to all but Trump's deluded brown-shirters.

The trouble with suggesting McConnell would know about leaks from the Russians is that he blocks Garland in March. But it was also in March when Trump was aligning himself with Pro-Russia reps.

In March, Trump also announced a roster of foreign policy advisers that includes Page, an investment banker who has criticized the Obama administration for "fomenting" Yanukovych's ouster, which infuriated Putin. Page, who has likened the U.S. role in Ukraine to Russian meddling in Canada, has extensive business ties in Russia, and has lamented the impact of Western sanctions against Moscow related to Ukraine.

In May Trump would add Manafort as his Campaign Manager.

This is stepping into conspiracy theory territory, which is usually best suited to people with tin foil hats, but the question remains reasonable. Why take such a huge risk, when there was a much better short-term option?

You are forgetting something...

The Republicans can and will filibuster Supreme Court nominees. If Hillary won, they'd be calling for impeachment hearings and questioning her nominees about her legal situation to the point of filibustering.

 

[blastula]

^Yeah, they were talking about blocking any of her nominees if she won.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/whats-the-opposite-of-court-packing/506081/

Now the debate has shifted, as several Republican senators have suggested simply not allowing any Democratic selections to the Supreme Court at all. Late on Monday, CNN reported on private remarks made by Senator Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican up for reelection. He said that there will be no lame-duck confirmation, and then added, “And if Hillary Clinton becomes president, I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court.”
That aligns him with Senator Ted Cruz, who last week told Dave Weigel, “There is certainly long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices. I would note, just recently, that Justice Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That’s a debate that we are going to have.”

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Alright. I can go with that. Sometimes you can explain things via insanity over conspiracy.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Alright. I can go with that. Sometimes you can explain things via insanity over conspiracy.

Jimmy's Razor:
"Don't assume conspiracies over insanity."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Alright. I can go with that. Sometimes you can explain things via insanity over conspiracy.

Jimmy's Razor:
"Don't assume conspiracies over insanity."

Jimmy's Razor:
"When considering Republican policy, don't assume conspiracies over insanity."

 

[Toni]

Alright. I can go with that. Sometimes you can explain things via insanity over conspiracy.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Jimmy's Razor:
"Don't assume conspiracies over insanity."

Jimmy's Razor:
"When considering Republican policy, don't assume conspiracies over insanity."

Awesome sauce.

 

[RavenSky]

I needed that!

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Also, if Clinton did win the election, they knew they still had a couple of months to go ahead and vote Garland in. There really was no risk for them at all.

Obama would have been able to withdraw the nomination, if he wanted to let Clinton make the pick.