Merrick Garland has kind of slipped off the media radar.

You’ll recall this fellow. He is the chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals who’s been nominated to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. President Obama selected him to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

I’ve got an idea for the probable next president of the United States to consider: In case the U.S. Senate continues to obstruct Garland’s appointment, don’t toss his nomination over once you take the oath of office.

I’m talking to you, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Garland’s nomination ran into a buzzsaw when Obama selected him. Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, declared within hours of Scalia’s death that no Obama appointment would get confirmed. They wanted to wait for the next president to take office.

They accused the president — and this just slays me — of “playing politics” with the appointment by demanding a Senate hearing and a vote on Garland’s nomination.

Kettle, meet pot.

Garland is an eminently qualified jurist. He’s been left — to borrow a phrase — to “twist in the wind” while the Senate dawdles and blocks the president from fulfilling his constitutional duties.

I’m going to suggest that Clinton will win the presidency when the votes are tallied this fall.

If that’s the case, then the Senate GOP leadership might yell “Uncle!” and have the hearing and vote it should have had all along.

But if not, then it would seem appropriate for the president-elect to carry this nomination forward. By everyone’s reckoning, Garland is a judicial moderate, a thoughtful man who was confirmed to the lower court with overwhelming Republican support.

Sure, the next president has the chance to pick someone of her choosing.

But if the Democratic candidate for the highest office is going to talk about fair and humane treatment of people, it would seem quite fair and humane to move Merrick Garland’s nomination forward for the next Senate to consider.