Alright, I want to be clear that this disagreement among Senate Republicans is over a minor subplot in the Merrick Garland confirmation saga: Would they confirm him in a lame duck session after the November election if Hillary Clinton wins? The idea is that Garland would be a better (and probably older) choice than anyone Hillary would nominate, especially if Republicans have lost the Senate.
But as I noted below that idea really undercuts the GOP's rationale for a united opposition to even considering Obama's nominee now. And several GOP senators already see why that is problematic.
"We can't have it both ways," Lindsey Graham said. "We cannot say 'let the people speak,' and then say 'no, you can't.' If you are going to let the people speak, let 'em speak and honor their choice."
More from Lauren Fox on The Hill here.