IN A move that will test the mettle of recalcitrant Senate Republicans, on March 16th Barack Obama tapped Merrick Garland, a respected and politically moderate judge, to fill the late Antonin Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court. Mr Obama presented Mr Garland as a “serious man and exemplary judge”: one of “America’s sharpest legal minds…who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even-handedness and excellence”. The nominee had been vetted but passed over for the highest bench by Mr Obama twice before.

According to Tom Goldstein, an expert court-watcher, Mr Garland is a choice from central casting. He earned undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard, clerked for a renowned liberal justice, William Brennan, was made partner in an elite law firm in a blazing four years and, during a mid-1990s stint in the Justice Department, oversaw the trials of the Unabomber and the masterminds of the Oklahoma City bombing. Since 1997 he has served on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, America’s second-most-influential tribunal, and has been its chief judge for three years.

With a record that includes a decision in 2003 siding with the government against detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Mr Garland is no liberal firebrand and, in normal times, would probably be a bipartisan shoo-in for a seat on the Supreme Court. Orrin Hatch, a Republican senator, praised his qualifications two decades ago and reiterated his support when Mr Obama was hunting for nominees early in his presidency. Last week Mr Hatch called him “a fine man”, but predicted Mr Obama would make a bolder choice to energise the base of the Democratic Party.

In his announcement, Mr Obama acknowledged that the political climate is “noisier and more volatile” than ever. If Senate Republicans refused to consider Mr Garland, he said, they would betray “our best traditions”. Yet he was clearly worried that they may do just that. “I hope they’re fair,” the president added.

The Republicans quickly tossed cold water on those hopes. “The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration,” said Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, after the announcement, but in the meantime, the Senate would not budge. This was a matter of “principle”: voters “should have a say” in filling the vacancy, and the Senate should hold off until the next president takes office in 2017.