Despite what you hear, GOP Senate is actually holding pretty firm against Garland hearings

I've heard a bit of panic among conservative pundits over the fact that 16 Republican senators have agreed to meet with Obama SCOTUS nominee Merrick Garland. It's not hard to understand why, given the proclivities of this Republican Congress, this could be seen as a precursor to surrender. And I agree that it the meetings are pointless if there is no chance of Garland being confirmed. But since when are Republicans averse to doing pointless things? As the Daily Signal points out today, the Republican caucus is holding pretty firm when it comes to the question of whether to actually hold hearings on the Garland nomination, let alone give him a vote:

---

But though 16 Republicans have signaled that they’re willing to meet with the nominee, only two have bucked the party line and support a Senate hearing on Garland. And last week the White House faced another setback: Two other Republican senators reversed their previous support for hearings. Republican Sens. Jerry Moran of Kansas and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska say they’ll back the blockade. On Friday, Moran’s office released a statement noting that the judge’s past record on gun rights and deference to administrative agencies “make[s] Garland unacceptable to serve on the Supreme Court.” His reversal came a week after the senator told constituents in Kansas he “would rather have you complaining to me that I voted wrong on nominating somebody than saying I’m not doing my job.”

The Signal seems convinced this is because the supposedly wavering senators heard from the grassroots and quickly reconsidered. That may be true, but I think in a lot of cases they signal a willingness to meet with Garland merely as a way of appearing reasonable. "It can't hurt to sit down and talk to the man," goes the thinking, and sure, it can't. But I'm not sure what it accomplishes either, and this goes to my continued frustration with Senate Republicans over the way they talk about this, if not about their actual actions.

---

---

If Republicans had the courage of their convictions, this would be a fairly simple case to make: Barack Obama has shown throughout his presidency that he doesn't respect the Constitution and doesn't respect the principles of limited government. So under no circumstances will he be allowed to appoint the Justice who swings the balance on the Court. The resume and/or reasonableness of the judge selected are beside the point, as are the obligatory claims that he is a "brilliant legal mind". (Try Googling that phrase along with the name of every Supreme Court nominee you can remember.) The only thing that matters is that Obama cannot be trusted to make the appointment. Period. It has nothing to do with whatever Garland might have to say when you sit down and talk to him. So why bother to have the conversation in the first place? It doesn't get you anywhere. That's the case the Republicans should be making, rather than relying on it's-an-election-year and all that rot. Does that mean Hillary is any better qualified to make the choice? Not at all. And if she gets elected it's unfortunately a very different story because we can't defend leaving that seat vacant for four years. But we can defend leaving it vacant for one as an alternative to letting Obama fill it. The Constitution says Obama has the power to make the nomination, and yes he does. I have no problem with him nominating someone. But the Senate has the power to consent, or to deny consent, and they can do either one for any reason. Not trusting Obama to make a good choice is a perfectly legitimate reason to deny consent, and that's the one they should be talking about every time this comes up. I suppose it's fine as long as we get the right outcome, which is no confirmation of an Obama appointee and an excellent new conservative Justice appointed by President . . . er, I'd better not invite that debate right here. The second part is obviously the hardest part. But the first part should be easy. Just don't confirm Garland. Would that we could have a Republican Senate majority that understood how not to make easy things hard.

---