I used to be a consultant at Democracy for America and Murshed used to be one of my favorite Netroots Nation drinking buddies back when he was working for Harry Reid. I’m utterly bored by DFA’s reaction here, but Murshed makes sense.
“It’s deeply disappointing that President Obama failed to use this opportunity to add the voice of another progressive woman of color to the Supreme Court, and instead put forward a nominee seemingly designed to appease intransigent Republicans rather than inspire the grassroots he’ll need to get that nominee through the Senate gauntlet,” said Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America.
“Judge Garland’s background does not suggest he will be a progressive champion and he is not the justice a conservative Republican would have nominated, but it is Pres. Obama’s Constitutional duty to nominate Supreme Court justices, and he is clearly qualified,” CREDO Political Director Murshed Zaheed said in a statement.
I just have to laugh out loud at the idea that DFA’s members were going to get a liberal nominee through “the Senate gauntlet.” Murshed, on the other hand, is dealing with reality. As long as the Republicans have at least 40 members in the Senate, and that is going to be the case until at least 2019, the Republicans will have effective veto power over any nominee.
It’s only the defeatists who don’t think that the president can get anyone confirmed who thought this pick should be selected to maximize turnout. As it stands, if the Democrats win the presidential election, the Republicans will run tripping over each other to confirm Garland in the lame duck. But they’re going to pay a brutal price for waiting that long because they have absolutely no argument against Garland on the merits.
I watched Fox News for half an hour after the announcement, and the majority of the people on there were saying that Garland was a good justice who should be confirmed and that the president had outfoxed (sic) the Republican leadership again. They pointed out that the public is totally against this obstructionist position that the Senate Republicans are taking, and they thought that Clinton will probably nominate someone much younger and less moderate if Garland isn’t approved.
The truth is, Garland will get confirmed no later than the lame duck and (if not) that Clinton would probably re-appoint him simply out of respect if nothing else.
He’ll be a perfectly fine Justice, and he’s a reasonable compromise choice considering that the Republicans do have enough power to have a say in who will sit on the Court.
Also, he doesn’t have to be a “progressive champion” to be the fifth vote in a liberal majority that will begin reversing two decades of conservative destruction on the High Court.
I wish some people could just relax once in a while.
