President Barack Obama decided to nominate Judge Merrick Garland of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals for the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy. Of the six judges most often named as possible nominees, Garland was my least favorite. He’s a 60-something white guy with a lot of conservative fans whose record shows a slant toward law enforcement and against criminal defendants. We can do better.

I’ve heard speculation that the president didn’t want to “waste” a good nominee this year, knowing the Republican-controlled Senate will likely not confirm his choice. This way, all of the more appealing choices will be fresh faces for Hillary Clinton to choose from next year, if she is elected president.

My immediate concern is that GOP senators will wake up in the fall and realize that 1) Donald Trump cannot win the presidency, and 2) weakness at the top of the ticket may take down their Senate majority, so 3) they better hurry up and confirm Garland before Clinton has a chance to pick a more liberal judge.

Iowa’s Senator Chuck Grassley was one of the 23 Republicans who voted against confirming Garland in 1997, not because of Garland’s qualifications, but because in his view, “the evidence does not support filling the [appeals court] vacancy at a cost to taxpayers of $1 million a year.”

I will update this post with more reaction after Obama’s announcement. UPDATE: Further news is after the jump.

UPDATE: According to Jason Noble of the Des Moines Register, Grassley has a phone call schedule for this afternoon with Garland. But for now, Grassley insists the nomination won’t move forward, Joseph Morton reported. Even if he’s prepared to take more heat from “Do Your Job” critics, I would not rule out a reversal of course once Republicans realize they will lose the presidential race.

Governor Terry Branstad and Garland are second cousins, Todd Ruger reported yesterday for Roll Call.

Branstad even wrote Iowa Republican Sen. Charles E. Grassley to ask his support and assistance in the confirmation process for Garland in 1995, when Garland was nominated for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Second cousins are the children of first cousins. In other words, if my mother or father is the first cousin of your mother or father, you and I are second cousins.

Branstad and Garland met for the first time recently and discussed their shared Latvian heritage. Who knew? A statement released by the governor’s office elaborates:

Gov. Branstad trusts Sen. Chuck Grassley and the governor will support the path chosen by Senator Grassley as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Over 20 years ago, at the request of Judge Garland, Gov. Branstad wrote a letter to Sen. Grassley in support of Merrick Garland being appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Judge Garland is a second cousin of Gov. Branstad. Gov. Branstad and Judge Garland met for the first time a couple of weeks ago while the governor was in Washington, DC for the National Governors Association’s winter meeting. During their breakfast, Gov. Branstad, Judge Garland and their spouses discussed the family’s Latvian heritage. The Governor has not followed Judge Garland’s judicial record since then and they did not discuss judicial matters at their first and only meeting a few weeks ago.

I got a kick out of today’s press release from Senator Joni Ernst:

Ernst: Give the people a voice in SCOTUS debate
Mar 16 2016

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) released the following statement regarding President Obama’s hand-picked nomination to the United States Supreme Court:

“In the midst of a critical election, the American people deserve to have a say in this important decision that will impact the course of our country for years to come.

“This is not about any particular nominee; rather this is about giving the American people a voice. Folks are frustrated with Washington, and are fed up with President Obama’s failed policies and endless power grabs. We saw this frustration embodied in 2014 when voters made their voices heard and elected a Republican majority in the Senate.

“My Democratic colleagues have noted in previous years that nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the Senate must vote on the president’s nominee to the Supreme Court. I support Senator Grassley’s decision to exercise the Senate’s constitutional authority to withhold consent to a Supreme Court nomination until the next president is sworn in.

“We must wait to see what the people say this November, and then our next president will put forward a nominee.”

Aren’t all Supreme Court nominees “hand-picked” by the president?

Didn’t the American people express their voice when they re-elected Obama to a second four-year term?

SECOND UPDATE: NPR’s Nina Totenburg hears rumblings about the scenario I fear: Republicans sent the White House a message that Garland would be acceptable to them, and they would confirm him during the lame-duck session if a Democrat wins the presidential election.

Already this morning, Senator Orrin Hatch indicated he might be willing to move Garland’s nomination under those conditions.

Obama should not have accepted those terms.

THIRD UPDATE: The Iowa Democratic Party posted this short clip from a Senate floor speech by Grassley in 1997, saying Garland “seems to be well qualified.”

All four Democratic candidates for this year’s U.S. Senate election have criticized Grassley’s stance. State Senator Rob Hogg’s campaign released the following statement:

Now it’s Senator Grassley’s turn to do his job

> Now that the President has made a nomination to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court, it is time for Senator Grassley and his colleagues in the United States Senate to do their job: give the nominee a fair hearing and an up-or-down vote.
>
> Having worked for two federal judges – one appointed by a Democrat and one appointed by a Republican – I know that good judges do their job regardless of the party of the President who appointed them. I also know how important it is to fill the vacancy and make sure the Supreme Court is able to resolve conflicts between courts and any contest in a disputed Presidential election like Bush v. Gore in 2000.
>
> In the Iowa Senate, we are currently reviewing Governor Branstad’s appointees for numerous boards and commissions including the State Judicial Nominating Commission. Each nominee will receive an up-or-down vote unless withdrawn by the Governor. The United States Senate should also set aside partisanship and do its job considering the President’s nominee.

Call Senator Grassley’s office at 202-224-3744 and urge him to do his job.

Former Lieutenant Governor Patty Judge’s campaign released these comments:

Excerpts from Patty Judge’s Press Conference on Chuck Grassley’s Supreme Court Obstruction

DES MOINES, Iowa – The following are excerpts from U.S. Senate candidate Patty Judge’s press conference call this afternoon following President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court:

“Now that President Obama has done his job by making a nomination, it’s time for Chuck Grassley to do his. Judge Garland deserves a fair hearing in the Judiciary Committee, where his qualifications can be assessed by members of the committee and the American people.

“I’m well aware of Chuck Grassley’s opposition to hearings, but I strongly urge him to reconsider this position. He is the only person in Washington with the power to make hearings happen. For 35 years he has waited to become the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, now that he has the job he also has the power that comes with it. That power includes scheduling a hearing for Judge Garland.

“He doesn’t need to wait for permission from his friends in the Republican leadership or Donald Trump, he could schedule and hold a hearing at his own discretion.”

Longtime Iowa Republican operative Eric Woolson, a veteran of some Grassley campaigns, belittled Judge on Twitter as the “Democrat power brokers’ Patty Chatty Doll on SUPCO nominee. DNC/Reid pull string, she spouts their talking points.” You mean like last week, when Grassley spouted talking points the Republican National Senatorial Committee had already pitched to me?

Former State Representative Bob Krause faulted Grassley for derailing the chance to get Iowan Jane Kelly on the Supreme Court. Krause accused Grassley of accused Grassley of being a “captive” of “conservative correctness.”

As of 4 pm on March 16, former State Senator Tom Fiegen’s Facebook page does not have a statement on the Supreme Court nomination. Instead, the admin posted reflections on yesterday’s disappointing primaries for Bernie Sanders. Fiegen has closely aligned with Sanders and has used his social media accounts more often to comment on the Democratic race for president than on his own Senate campaign. Fiegen’s Twitter postings today have criticized Judge’s ties to industrial agriculture and called attention to Branstad’s letter urging Grassley to support Garland’s nomination during the 1990s.

Grassley’s office confirmed a phone conversation with Garland this afternoon, saying the senator repeated his stance on the Supreme Court vacancy. White House sources indicated earlier today that Grassley had agreed to meet with Garland after the Senate’s Easter recess, but that meeting doesn’t sound like a sure thing.

The White House created a video of Garland talking about his family, the Supreme Court, and his role in prosecuting the Oklahoma City bombing case in 1995.

THURSDAY UPDATE: Grassley did not appreciate White House officials “intervening” by confirming his telephone conversation with Garland. The senator has not confirmed plans to meet with the judge. However, CNN’s Manu Raju and Ted Barrett reported on March 17,

“If I can meet with a dictator in Uganda, I can surely meet with a decent person in America,” Grassley said Thursday.

He added that it’s a “pretty hard to say no” to an hour-long meeting with Garland.

“I want to make it clear that the message we told him on the phone yesterday — I will tell him face-to-face,” Grassley. […]

“It would be intellectually dishonest for me to say that at this point,” Grassley said when asked if he’d be open to considering the nominee in a lame-duck session.

Politico’s Seung Min Kim asked Grassley yesterday whether he was open to a lame-duck session confirmation of Garland, in the event of a Democrat winning the presidency. Grassley said no.

Some “tea party” group is robocalling Iowans asking them to support Grassley against the president’s “super liberal” nominee for the high court.

Iowa editorial boards are starting to weigh in against Grassley’s position again. From today’s Council Bluffs Nonpareil:

For Republicans, it’s hard to imagine Obama nominating a much more palatable option than Garland – eminently qualified, equal parts moderate and liberal. Seven current GOP senators, and 32 in all, voted for his confirmation to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1997.

Yet, Grassley was one of the leaders in delaying his appointment to that bench for more than 30 months. The senator’s objections were classified by the Associated Press as regarding the number of seats on the courts, not with his credentials.

Somehow, Garland’s fate has come full circle – once again nominated for a promotion, threatened by Grassley’s obstruction on purely political grounds.

Again, we call on Grassley to stop playing political games and holding the judicial system hostage over partisan demands. Barring a qualified nominee on such grounds is not only an insult to him but to all Americans, who are represented by a court that should have nine justices at all times.

The Des Moines Register’s Kathie Obradovich validated the senator’s claim to be standing on principle in her latest column:

It may be his job to consider people, but Grassley wants to cling to an impersonal principle. He’s excluding the human element — the personal and professional qualities of Judge Garland and the effect on people’s lives of leaving a vacancy open on the nation’s highest court. If Grassley wants to put principles over people, maybe he should have gone to law school and become a judge.

Let’s be clear: Grassley’s position is all about politics, not principle.

Last night, Bret Baier of Fox News asked Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell why not hold hearings on Garland to highlight key issues, if the goal is to allow the people to have input on the Supreme Court nominee? McConnell responded, “That’s not the goal. The goal is to let the American people pick the next president, who will make that decision.” Asked what would happen if Hillary Clinton were elected president and the Senate might receive a more liberal nominee, McConnell said he didn’t know who will be the next president. He didn’t bring up the possibility of a lame-duck confirmation of Garland.

Greg Sargent suggested that the president could get the “last laugh” by withdrawing his nomination of Garland if Clinton wins the November election. Obama certainly should threaten to do so. I doubt he will take that step.