acceptable as a replacement for Scalia (which, of course, he is and they didn’t).”
Is that true? I had no idea that we should actually find Garland acceptable. If that is the case, then this is a brilliant strategy. But I can’t imagine that Garland is actually a conservative, except possibly a Souter-like conservative.
I mistyped. Garland is NOT an acceptable substitute for Scalia, but he would be for Ginsburg. What would make him a particularly interesting nominee is that the Dems would have a difficult time Borking a nominee they once supported for the same job. If he turns out to be a Souter, that’s okay because he’s replacing a full-out lib. But I don’t think the Dems will accept the gift and scream for either a minority to replace Ginsburg or a hard-line lefty. That’s where Trump springs the trap.