Media trying pretty hard to sell SCOTUS pick Garland as a 'centrist'

Rob has given you a pretty clear picture, here and here, of the true nature of Obama Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. He would, exactly as you might expect from an Obama nominee, tilt the Court to the left and eliminate any serious check on the unconstitutional inclinations of this or future Democrat presidents. That’s exactly why the Republican-controlled Senate (at least for the moment) has vowed not to confirm him. In this case it’s really not about whether he’s “qualified” in a resume sense. As Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, he clearly is. That's not the issue. The issue is the damage the country would suffer if we had a fifth Justice as willing to disregard the clear meaning of the law and Constitution as are Justices Breyer, Sotomayer, Kagan and Ginsburg. The Senate is perfectly within its rights to reject Garland for that reason, even though it may have approved him for appointment to a lower court.

The Obama Administration's political strategy here is to offer up Garland as a "moderate" and dare Senate Republicans to oppose someone of such impeccable qualifications (oh, and a "brilliant legal mind," which is said at some point about every SCOTUS nominee). The strategy depends on the media's willingness to co-opt Obama language on the issue, and as usual, they're ready to play ball. Reuters jumped right into the fray this morning:

President Barack Obama selected Merrick Garland for the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, choosing a centrist judge meant to win over recalcitrant Senate Republicans whose leaders wasted no time in spurning the Democratic president.

So by what measure is Garland a "centrist," given his hostility toward gun rights and Planned Parenthood's glee at the selection? Obviously Reuters makes that determination from its own ideological perspective, which is clearly closer to Obama's than, say, ours. But there's a strategic reason for the use of the term, and you'll hear it a lot in the weeks to come as Democrats trot Garland all across the capital and campaign on his behalf. The message will be that, contrary to Republican predictions of a wild-eyed leftist lunatic, Obama has nominated a moderate centrist of the utmost qualifications who can't possibly fit the paranoid hysteria Republicans are peddling about the end of the republic. Democrats will push this theme again and again and dare Republicans to defend the idea that Garland is some sort of radical.

---

In response, Republicans are going to use the lame argument offered yesterday by Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts - that it's really about "the process" and not about Garland at all. They'll say that because it's an election year, they shouldn't be considering or confirming any appointment Obama makes. This, in return, will bring rejoinders from Democrats (supported wholeheartedly by the media, of course) about the various times in history when the Senate has indeed confirmed SCOTUS picks in election years. This is a real missed opportunity for Senate Republicans, who could be making the case for why it's so important to have a Supreme Court majority that actually cares about the Constitution - and why the price will be so high for the nation if we don't. But your run-of-the-mill D.C. Republican doesn't specialize in serious substantive appeals about what's good for the country. I suppose that doesn't mean Garland will necessarily be confirmed, at least not this year. I am certain the Democrats will win the battle for public opinion about his qualifications if only because the media will so willingly aid in their efforts. If the Republican primary trainwreck continues unabated and we get stuck with President Hillary next year, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if she re-nominates Garland - and at that point the Republicans really have no rationale left for not confirming him. Of course, Republicans could still nominate a serious constitutional conservative who would give us a chance to replace Antonin Scalia with a worthy successor - if enough Republican primary voters start thinking seriously about the real stakes here.