In this article, it discusses President Obama making his case for his SCOTUS nominee. Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, taught at Chicago Law school for ten years.  Obama argued that without legitimate concerns about Garland's record, Republicans were refusing his nomination solely on political grounds.  It was argued that he would not bring any diversity to the court Obama continued to say that he did not set out to find a connate of a certain demographic. Then he fired back with, "At no point did I say, 'Oh, I need a black lesbian from Skokie,"  "Yeah he's a white guy, but he's a really outstanding jurist. Sorry, I think that's important." Obama launched an aggressive campaign on Republicans to take up Garland's nomination, because he thinks that he is qualified to server in the highest court in the land.

I completely agree with Obama and think it is unfair that the Republicans are not even giving Garland a chance. I believe that he is a extraordinary jurist, why else would he have been chosen? I also believe that the Republicans have not given a valid argument to why they do not want him serving as a Justice. Just like Obama said, "No one has plausibly made an argument that this is not the kind of person we'd want on the Supreme Court. The question then becomes: Why is it so hard for the guy just to get a hearing and a vote?"

This relates to class content because we have been talking about the things that go on in the Supreme court. We have discussed what goes into selecting Judges, one's party affiliation plays a part. Because the ones that have to approve the nominee are mostly Republican, obviously, they would want a Republican nominee. But with a Democratic President he, obviously, would pick a Democratic nominee. Which seems to be the problem here, the Senate who is trying to wait it out until the next president is elected, so that President will hopefully choose a Republican nominee.