I think this was a brilliant pick.   It was done to box the republicans in.  They look like idiots if they don't move on it and even better they look like idiots if they do.

As far as his judicial temperament, IMO it's almost  irrelevant in this case.  He will not be confirmed.  And I assume Obsma knew that when he was picked.   The guy has been on the short list for a long time.   As far as him being used as a pawn, boo hoo.  

This was smart on several levels.  The one big problem republicans have with the guy is his decision on Heller, the gun decision.  Just one more way to keep guns in the news.  

Obama could have nominated someone like Corey Booker.  To gin up the vote this fall.   I was one who earlier thought that was the smart thing to do.  I see now I was wrong.  If he had done that they would have reacted pretty much exactly the same way but could have made it look legitimate by saying he was just making a political pick.   That's impossible now.  The only ones looking political now are the republicans.  Hatch said just a few days ago that if Obama wanted to make a serious pick he would pick Merrick Garland.  But of course he won't do that said Hatch.

Guess what?

And again the bottom line, the guy will not be confirmed.  Even if they manage to get him a hearing they wil NEVER confirm him.  Thr republicans look like fools either way.   Obama looks like the adult once again and Hillary gets to make a better pick later.

To add to the cravenness, I think this is almost unbelievable, some republicans have said publicly that if Hillary is elected they would confirm him in the lame duck period.  Now, this is even making republicans roll their eyes.

Miami-based federal judge Adalberto Jordan recently withdrew his name for consideration to the post. Florida Sen. Bill Nelson tells CNN Jordan withdrew due to what he called a "personal family situation" involving his mother. The Cuban-born Jordan has served on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals since 2012.

Jordan is the second potential candidate in as many days to remove their name from the court search. On Tuesday, a spokeswoman said attorney general Loretta Lynch would not consider the post.

The political scientists Lee Epstein and Andrew Martin looked at the data using regression analysis and found that conservative justices generally vote to strike down liberal statutes and liberal justices generally vote to strike down conservative statutes. After controlling for irrelevant differences in the cases, the authors find that the Republican appointee Chief Justice John Roberts voted to strike down liberal laws 46 percent of the time and conservative laws only 17 percent of the time. For Samuel Alito, the numbers are 54 percent and 2 percent. The pattern holds, but in the opposite direction, for the liberal justices. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appointed by Bill Clinton, voted to strike down conservative laws 67 percent of the time, and liberal laws only 17 percent of the time. For Justice Stephen Breyer, the numbers are 53 percent and 16 percent.

How would a Justice Garland fit in? I have tried to figure out why people think that he is a "moderate liberal." He does not have a history of political activism but hardly any Supreme Court justice does. Tom Goldstein, a lawyer and Supreme Court expert, read Garland's opinions back in 2010 and observed that Garland frequently voted against criminal defendants. Garland was a prosecutor, and may well be less sympathetic to criminal defendants than most liberal are. But he seems liberal on regulation, civil rights, and environmental law.

It's true, though, that one cannot predict much from the votes of an appellate judge. Circuit judges, unlike Supreme Court justices, do not make law, and they almost always vote the same as their colleagues. Everyone scratched their heads when Sonia Sotomayor, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito were nominated as well. Their opinions revealed almost nothing about their politics. Prosecutorial background also reveals little; Sotomayor and Alito were both prosecutors, and now they vote in opposite directions on criminal cases.

If the situation were reversed, how do you think a President Trump, or the Republicans in general, would react?

I'll say it again, just look at what the clown, Donald Trump, has been able to accomplish with just a mic. Yet, the President, with the biggest mic in the world, his Bully Pulpit, basically lets it slide.

Why not speak to the American people, especially people like Trump's followers, and use this episode as an example of why none of their complaints are being addressed? Even low information voters understand that when the American people elect a Boss/President, he/she should be allowed to do his/her job.