Meet Merrick Garland

Speaking of backing into corners, in an odd way the choice of Garland underscores that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell knew what he was doing when he announced, immediately after the news of Scalia's death, that the Senate would not take up any nominee.

This is an outrageous position, but McConnell rarely blunders on a tactical level, as some believed he did with the Scalia announcement. It would have been much harder for McConnell to keep his troops in line if he had waited to make that case until a nominee was named. And given the choice of Garland, the argument for inaction would look like a last-ditch effort -- in the absence of any substantive count against him -- rather than a purported stand on principle.

It was telling that Republican senators' responses to the Garland nomination focused on criticism of the nomination, not the nominee. It was left to the Republican National Committee to issue a "meet Merrick Garland" press release depicting him as an anti-gun, pro-big government liberal.

Speaking of meeting Merrick Garland, I should probably disclose that he and I first met 30-plus years ago, when I was a law student interviewing with his firm for a summer job. Not only didn't I get the job, I didn't even get an invitation to come to Washington for a second-round interview.

So when I ran into Garland a few years later and jokingly chided him, he did something classically Garland: Meticulous as always, he checked the records, and reported back that the firm didn't think I was serious about practicing law. Which proves that Garland has good judgment (I wasn't) or good people skills (what a nice brush-off) or both.

Either way, another argument for the confirmation he so resoundingly deserves.

========

Ruth Marcus' email address is ruthmarcus@washpost.com.