Merrick Garland. And before you laugh too hard, here's why:
Garland is moderate/ middle left candidate who was unanimously approved (bipartisan) for previous positions and has a number of conservative Republicans who were on record as supporting him.
In other words, not really a controversial pick for either side.
McConnell’s obstructing Obama’s pick for about 9 months or so caused a great deal of ire from many regarding the Senate’s role in “advise and consent.”. McConnell stated he was simply holding firm to the “rule” that “justices should not be named during an election year,” essentially. The party line was that, over and over. “We have an election coming up, and we should wait to allow THE PEOPLE to weigh in” etc. etc.
NOW, McConnell is attempting the shell game of rewriting history and changing his reasoning altogether...
And you KNOW the hue and cry over such blatant hypocrisy will be loud, long, and bitter.
So here is why *I* think the nomination of Garland would work:
1. Republicans can sidestep the (well-deserved) outrage that they will spark when they try to ram through a hard-right candidate (their most likely choice.)
2. Democrats should be placated enough by this nomination to overlook the “ramming it through despite how things really SHOULD proceed” and will let it go through without the procedural, Constitutional, political, and moral challenges that will be raised otherwise.
3. If Trump is NOT re-elected, as the polls seem to indicate and if the Senate should flip, which is a real possibility with all things considered, then the Republicans will be happy they got a more centrist juror than one leaning further left if Biden makes the nomination.
away their “It MUST be ‘our guy’ at any cost” mentality, and decide to find a
more unifying choice, then not only the Republicans and the Democrats win...