Look, this isn’t hard. The Constitution states that the Senate has the power of “advice and consent” to presidential appointments and nominations. Nowhere in Article II, Section 2, does it say, “except in election years” or “when a majority of senators are not of the president’s party” or “just because we say so.”

A few Republican senators claim they’re willing to go so far as to meet with Garland, but with no promise of any kind of hearing. Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he’ll meet with the nominee—after all, he was willing to “meet with a dictator”—but no dice on a hearing. Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas made vague threats, hinting that any nominee would “bear some resemblance to a piñata.” McConnell, meanwhile, is making up supposed "rules" about not approving justices in a president's last year, even though there's no precedent for that.

Vulnerable GOP senators facing tough re-election battles this year (of which there are many) are really caught in the middle. Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk said he’s in favor of hearings (knowing full well they won’t happen) and that the GOP should "man up" and cast a vote on Garland. New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte is willing to talk to Garland, but no more. Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson all but admitted that the Senate would do its job if a Republican president were in the White House.

So what’s the next step? Garland is 63 and already is in a job most lawyers only dream about, so he may be a sacrificial lamb in a nomination fight that Obama suspected would never come to fruition. If the Senate keeps taking the "it's my ball and I'm going home" attitude, Garland is still in an enviable position. He can still keep tutoring kids in northeast Washington, something he’s done for 18 years and something that seems to have brought him a sense of inner satisfaction.

x YouTube Video

What will happen to Garland’s nomination? Here’s the scenario as spelled out on Rachel Maddow’s blog: 1). Impose an eight-month blockade on the Garland nomination, unlike anything ever seen in American history, including a prohibition on floor votes and confirmation hearings. 2). Wait for the election results in November. 3). If a Republican wins the presidency, do nothing. 4). If Hillary Clinton wins, revisit the blockade and consider confirming Garland during the lame-duck session between Election Day and the start of the new Congress in 2017.

The benefit to Republicans would be obvious: They’d confirm a 63-year-old moderate, rather than let Clinton nominate someone younger and more liberal. At that point, GOP senators appear craven and unprincipled, but by all appearances, Republicans just don’t care.

Constitutional duties be damned, right? Except that Senate Democrats already have put the kibosh on Door No. 4; Minority Leader Harry Read said they will not cooperate in such a scenario.

This is where the three-dimensional chess analogy comes in. There are many qualified nominees Obama could have chosen, certainly someone younger and more liberal. Instead, he chose a nominee who would have no possible disqualifications except for the fact that he came from Obama, a president Republicans have attempted to stymie his entire time in office. He even chose the very man Orrin Hatch suggested.

Nearly two thirds of Americans want the Senate to do its job and give Judge Merrick Garland a fair hearing. If the Republican Senate refuses, Obama wins in the court of public opinion. Vulnerable GOP senators might be more likely to lose their seats, ensuring a Democratic takeover in November. The issue could even turn voters toward the Democratic presidential nominee. And the Obama administration is using the full-court press for Garland, so no one can say officials aren't trying as hard as they can or taking their responsibility seriously.

Your move, GOP senators. Or, “please proceed,” as Obama might say.