I WAS not there, but I can imagine President Obama in the Oval Office posing this question about Judge Merrick B. Garland: “Given this man’s lengthy history on the bench and his impeccable reputation, what can be said against him serving on the Supreme Court?”

The answer from his advisers might have been: “Nothing, sir. But the Republicans don’t want to give up their decades-long control of this court, and they would rather ignore the Constitution and freeze the government than allow that to happen.”

When President Obama picked Judge Garland to fill Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat, he was choosing an extraordinarily well-qualified jurist. Judge Garland has served on the bench for 19 years, the last three as chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. No Supreme Court justices, even the greats, matched his record of federal judicial service at the time of their confirmation. His excellence as a jurist is surpassed only by the respect and affection people in both parties feel toward him.

By sending the Senate a nominee of this quality and stature, President Obama has increased the political price Republicans will pay if they ignore their constitutional duty to provide advice and consent. That was the president’s objective from the start: Find a nominee beyond reproach who would, under normal circumstances, be confirmed without controversy. Force the Republicans to either back down or defend the indefensible.