Yesterday, President Obama announced Merrick Garland as his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court at a White House press conference. Moments after the announcement, Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell took to the floor of the Senate to double-down on Republican’s promise to obstruct ANY Obama nomination.
It’s not surprising that Obama’s Supreme Court nomination would immediately get polarized and hyper-politicized given that this is a presidential election year and Mitch McConnell and DC Republicans have made it their mission to block any proposal that Obama puts forward. Forget that many high-ranking Republicans have praised Merrick Garland in the past – remember: fact, history, past press statements are irrelevant for a Republican Party that has been driving itself off the rails since it elected Tea Party candidates in the 2010 mid-term elections.
Given the heavy political spin around Merrick Garland’s nomination, it’s great when you get a chance to hear a fair-minded discussion about what Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court might mean for the Court going forward – IF – and that’s a big “if” at this point – he is actually confirmed. I often turn to the Ian Millhiser’s perspective on ThinkProgress’s Justice Blog.
Ian Millhiser was on the Rick Smith Show yesterday to talk about who Merrick Garland is, what his record has been, and what his nomination might mean for the Court and the nation. I have to say that the discussion was fair-minded, serious, and helped me rethink some of my initial reactions to Merrick Garland’s nomination. I encourage everyone to check out the interview below. It’s really worth it.