Fair to say the Republican explanations for their SCOTUS no-vote is all muddled. Not that the ‘Biden’ rule and Pres. Obama filibustering Alito and all that other stuff doesn’t represent real hypocrisy… it does… and not that it isn’t worth pointing out… it is, always….. but Republicans are as usual not winning the rhetorical / PR battle there and such that they aren’t and such that the President after this one probably won’t be a Republican we’re all supposed to fret they’d do worse by not confirming Garland….
Meh. On questions of state and agency power, there’s no spectrum of jurisprudential perspective on the liberal wing of SCOTUS. The liberals always affirm it, and will do so in defiance of constitutional reasons not to and in the absence of serious contemplation (it’s fairly well understood now and admitted by Justice Stevens’ himself that Kelo v. New London is built on a faulty reading of precedent. He say’s it a correct opinion anyway… https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/06/01/why-the-kelo-decision-is-wrong-part-i/…)
So Garland may well be a ‘moderate liberal’ but when the rubber meets the road on decision voting I rather doubt there’d be any difference between him and a radical liberal, whatever that’s supposed to represent.
So we’ve got a constitutional challenge going right now on the Administration’s appropriation of immigration policy in violation of law. I doubt it matters there whether it’s Garland or someone more liberal, they’ll affirm the Democrat administration.
Gun people worry about Heller… what will happen is eventually Chicago or DC or NY will repass a handgun or assault weapons ban, and it will go to SCOTUS. Ibid, it doesn’t really matter what Democrat judge has been appointed to SCOTUS, the liberal hive mind dictates the result. Either Garland or a Hillary judge will uphold a ban as within bounds of Heller.
Abortion…goes without saying
Broader goals of the progressive project, EPA, etc…. They’ll vote in lock step.
So get back to the real reason Republicans won’t confirm an Obama nominee to SCOTUS …. It’s because Democrats don’t believe in the limiting principles of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Republicans believe in the Constitution amirite, so the idea was ride out the election season and let a Republican president appoint someone who’ll defend it. That might not happen as planned eh, but the potentiality of Hillary’s ‘more liberal’ appointment doesn’t make action on Garland urgent cuz…. there’s no practical difference in the way the rulings come down.
Might as well keep riding it out, see what happens, see if you have enough senators left to filibuster in 2017.