The Supreme Court vacancy, a minefield for Republicans

President Obama's Supreme Court shortlist has leaked. Here are the 6 contenders.

Almost a month after the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, President Obama's shortlist of potential nominees to replace him appears to be taking shape. Looking at lists from the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Associated Press, and NPR's Nina Totenberg, six candidates keep appearing:

Merrick Garland, US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit
Ketanji Brown Jackson, US District Court for DC
Jane Kelly, US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Patricia Millett, US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit
Sri Srinivasan, US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit
Paul Watford, US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Reuters has reported that the list is even smaller: just Garland, Srinivasan, and Watford. Other options previously floated — like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, US Sen. Amy Klobuchar, and Adalberto Jordan of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit — have either taken themselves out of contention or confirmed they're not being considered.

Here's what you need to know about the final list — their strengths, their flaws, and why Obama would and would not want to pick them — in subjective order of how much buzz they're picking up. Be sure to also read Ian Millhiser at ThinkProgress, who has useful details on all six.

Merrick Garland to be Obama's Supreme Court nominee

Merrick Garland is older than any Supreme Court nominee since 1971. Here's why it matters.

So why would Obama make the choice to nominate a man who is considerably older and therefore able to serve on the Court for a more limited number of years?

There are a couple of possible explanations. The first is that Obama might very well believe Garland won’t be confirmed, in which case it makes sense to use an older, distinguished judge as a sacrificial lamb and allow his successor to elevate a younger nominee next year.

That is probably part of the calculus. But there’s a second, more interesting explanation that illuminates President Obama’s strategic thinking.

It is, simply put, that Garland’s age, like his moderate record, is yet another compromise.

Rick Hasen gets at the idea on his Election Law Blog: "I have suggested (in the last chapter of Plutocrats United) that one way to compromise on SCOTUS nominees is an 18-year term limit," he writes. "Appointing someone who is 63 moves in that direction. It gives the President a win, but one which as a matter of probability and actuary tables won’t be on the Court as long."

President Obama could have chosen a young nominee, one who could have shifted the ideological center of the Court to the left for years, perhaps decades to come. Instead, he has chosen someone who will necessarily curtail his own influence on the Court. It is yet another sign that Obama is really looking to find a compromise candidate that Republicans would find palatable, rather than playing to his Democratic base.

With the stakes so high, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his Republican colleagues vowed within hours after Scalia’s death to not confirm any Supreme Court nominees until after the election. That unprecedented position quickly turned into a broad refusal to hold hearings on the nominee or even meet the person.

Garland's selection did not seem to shake that position.

“It seems President Obama nominated Garland not with the intent of seeing him confirmed, but in order to politicize it for the purpose of the election,” McConnell claimed on the Senate floor shortly after the announcement.

McConnell doubles down

We're already seeing the way that McConnell intends the situation to play out.

Garland won't get any hearings until the election is over. Then, after Clinton has been elected, the Republicans in the senate (including lame ducks like Mark Kirk of Illinois) will decide that it's now a good time to hold hearings on Garland - not because they have discovered a new-found sense of fairness, but because they correctly fear that Clinton will present them with an even worse choice.

But the Republicans could also lose the Senate.

I think Obama will keep the Garland nomination, not because he is "just enough of an egotist", but because he probably promised Garland that he would stand behind his nomination.

McConnell intends there to be a Republican victory in 2016. If it turns out that Clinton is elected, he will likely do as you say as a backup plan, but his main plan is to hold out until a Republican president is sworn in in 2017.

Given the damage done to Mr. Obama's second term by the 2013 gun control debacle, McConnell will almost certainly be able to follow his main plan and wait for President Trump to be sworn in.

Fair enough, but you've gone on the record as someone who believes Supreme Court justices should be appointed on the basis of ideology versus any other criteria.