Sen. Amy Klobuchar wanted Merrick Garland to succeed James Comey at the FBI until she realized what that means

“To be clear,” the senator tweeted, “this isn’t going to happen. I [retweeted] because it’s a good idea for [Republicans] to think about consensus FBI candidates.”

While consensus candidate sounds nice, the suggestion is a bit of a straw man. Even though Republicans can muscle through a nominee with a simple majority thanks to Harry Reid’s decision to go nuclear in 2013, there’s little indication that they will. In fact, no FBI director in the last two decades has been confirmed without near unanimous support.

What’s more likely is that Klobuchar leaped at Lee’s modest proposal before looking it over carefully. If Garland replaced Comey, he would leave a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, probably the second most-important court in the U.S.

With such an appointment not only would President Trump mute his critics, he’d get another chance to reshape the federal judiciary.

Considering recent history, one could excuse Garland for passing on such a nomination. Though he’s eminently qualified, the judge probably isn’t inclined to do Republicans any favors. As the Washington Post’s Dave Weigel notes, Lee wouldn’t even meet with Garland when President Obama made him his Supreme Court nominee.

But the Klobuchar-Lee episode is still telling. By floating Garland’s name, Trump could put Democrats in an extremely tight spot. He’d force Democrats to oppose the judge less than a year after they vouched for him. Is such a move unlikely? Yes. Is it possible? Perhaps.

So long as Trump remains in the White House, all political moves, no matter how bizarre seem plausible. Occasionally, a Democrat might even fall for one.

Klobuchar’s office did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Philip Wegmann is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.