"Understand before disagreeing; then disagree without being disagreeable."

In his formal introduction of Judge Merrick Garland, his nominee for the Supreme Court seat vacated by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, President Obama was both eloquent and detailed in telling the American people why he has chosen Judge Garland.  What stuck in my mind, as I listened on my car radio, was his description of Judge Garland's temperament and his habit of dealing with disagreement over issues.  Quoting President Obama:

On a circuit court known for strong-minded judges on both ends of the spectrum, Judge Garland has earned a track record of building consensus as a thoughtful, fair-minded judge who follows the law.  He’s shown a rare ability to bring together odd couples, assemble unlikely coalitions, persuade colleagues with wide-ranging judicial philosophies to sign on to his opinions.

And this record on the bench speaks, I believe, to Judge Garland’s fundamental temperament -- his insistence that all views deserve a respectful hearing.  His habit, to borrow a phrase from former Justice John Paul Stevens, “of understanding before disagreeing,” and then disagreeing without being disagreeable," . . .  speaks to his ability to persuade, to respond to the concerns of others with sound arguments and airtight logic. . . . .

At the same time, Chief Judge Garland is more than just a brilliant legal mind.  He’s someone who has a keen understanding that justice is about more than abstract legal theory; more than some footnote in a dusty casebook.  His life experience . . . informs his view that the law is more than an intellectual exercise.  He understands the way law affects the daily reality of people’s lives . . .  And throughout his jurisprudence runs a common thread -– a dedication to protecting the basic rights of every American; a conviction that in a democracy, powerful voices must not be allowed to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.

This over-arching approach to justice and fairness comes in a man with impeccable qualifications as well:

Growing up in a family with a strong work ethic, he earned a scholarship to Harvard, where he graduated summa cum laude, and then went on to finish Harvard Law School with magna cum laude honors.   He served two clerkships, one for Supreme Court Justice William Brennen.    He left a partnership in a private law firm to become a federal prosecutor and handled the Oklahoma City bombing, taking the case all the way fhrough the conviction of 
Timothy McVeigh.

Garland was appointed to the District of Columbia Appeals Court, considered first among equals on the appeals court circuit and second in importance only the the U.S. Supreme Court.    He had strong bipartisan support in the senate when he was elevated to the position of Chief Justice of that court three years ago.    Insiders have said that Garland was the runner-up in Obama's nomination of both Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan.

Further, he has a strong commitment to the law and to doing things according to the law.   He is probably best described as a moderate liberal, but not as an ideologue.   If Obama wanted to nominate a firebrand that would shake up the court, or carry a strong message, there are others he would have chosen.   In choosing Judge Garland, he is opting for a superb addition to the court, as well as one who represents a gesture of respect for the other side's point of view.

Wouldn't you think such a sterling nominee would sail through the confirmation process?   Mitch McConnell hardly let the echos of President Obama's announcement die away before taking to the senate floor to reiterate his adamant refusal to even begin the process.   It doesn't matter how well qualified;  it's not about the person but about the process.   They are determined to hold to their stand that the next president should fill this vacancy on the court, thus allowing "the American people to express their preference through the electoral process."

So there is the stalemate.   The Democrats' ace in the hole is that this could cost the Republicans the control of the senate, given the number of them who are in tight races in blue or purple states.   It's a serious question:   would they rather lose control of the senate than of SCOTUS?    Maybe.

McConnell and others go way over the line in this controversy, in my opinion, arguing that "it is unprecedented" to confirm a nominee during a president's last year in office, which is simply not true.    Even more absurd, though, is the charge that it is Obama, not they, who is injecting politics into this.   What they mean is that, in doing his job to nominate, Obama is calling their bluff and making it obvious that THEY are injecting politics, and they are refusing to do their job. 

The Constitution says the president "shall nominate" supreme court justices;  it does not say "except in the last year of his term."    Obama was re-elected to serve through inauguration day in January 2017.

So, let's get on with it.

Ralph