A lot has changed since Ted Cruz dropped out of the race for the GOP presidential nomination, leaving Donald Trump as the presumptive nominee. Well, perhaps not a lot has changed, but it was a bit of a shocker when, because of Trump s victory, the  ber conservative website RedState suggested that now would be the time for the Senate to approve the nomination of Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court.Now, to be fair, RedState, which is published by Erick Erickson, a man once called the most powerful conservative in America, has never been a fan of Trump. Much of the blog s front page, as of late, has been dedicated to the #NeverTrump movement. Here is how badly RedState wants you not to vote for Trump:I say this without rancor, sarcasm or ill will. For anyone who wants to know what s next for the #NeverTrump movement, the answer is that we don t vote for Trump. Each person will deal with that differently   some will vote for third party or not vote. Some will vote for Hillary. #NeverTrump means different things to different people except for one thing   it means we will not vote for Trump, not ever. And nothing that s happened tonight has changed that.Over the course of the next few weeks and months and years, as a conservative movement we will spend a great deal of time in self reflection, examining the weaknesses in our movement that allowed a cancer like Trump to flourish in our midst. We will have hard decisions to make about our affiliation with the Republican party, and what we will do with our votes in November.But one thing and one thing only remains certain: Donald Trump will never have our vote. We said it, and we meant it.Yikes. But what does that have to do with the nomination of Merrick Garland? Well, RedState is convinced that there s no way on earth that Trump could make it to the White House, and that if Hillary nominates someone, she might nominate a *duh duh duh* liberal.Now that Donald Trump is the presumptive nominee, this is not even a close call. There is absolutely no reason to drag this out any longer. Garland is not a great choice, but he is not a terrible one, either. And more than anything, he is old (for a modern Supreme Court appointment) and will be up for replacement in probably 10 years instead of 20 or 30.Republicans must know that there is absolutely no chance that we will win the White House in 2016 now. They must also know that we are likely to lose the Senate as well. So the choices, essentially, are to confirm Garland and have another bite at the apple in a decade, or watch as President Clinton nominates someone who is radically more leftist and 10-15 years younger, and we are in no position to stop it.Unfortunately, no matter how many Senators agree with RedState, there s little chance that Garland will see a confirmation hearing. Only one man stands between him and the hearing, and that man has vowed to never, under any circumstances, negotiate with terrorists President Obama. Even as of Wednesday, Mitch McConnell is standing resolute to obstruct.To be fair, RedState s article wasn t an editorial stance. Erickson himself hates Trump, probably as much as you or I, but he s not ready to go so far as to concede anything to the black man in the White House. Naturally, he didn t say that, but he is concerned that independents might vote for Hillary. From NBC News: If Republicans confirm Merrick Garland, in addition to further alienating the Republican base, they risk taking away keep arguments that can persuade independent voters to go with a Republican Senate. Ticket splitting is a rare phenomenon in the United States, but this is a rare election where ticket splitting is a real possibility,  Erickson wrote.Yes, ticket splitting is a real possibility, but 2/3 of Americans want to see at least a hearing, if not a confirmation. Perhaps going forward with a hearing could help solidify the fractured party.Featured image via Wikimedia. 