The data on delegate allocations comes in piecemeal and very slowly, so I cannot post my spreadsheet, but a quick check indicates that even with the loss of Ohio, Trump is way ahead of my estimates, and should be able to win 1237 delegates before the Convention.
The latest SCOTUS wrinkle, by the way, is this: Some Republicans are now suggesting that they will hold Garland's nomination hostage until after the election. If Clinton wins and the Dems take back the Senate, they will hurry up and confirm him between the time when the new Senate convenes and the inauguration of Clinton, which would automatically abrogate the nomination and allow her to nominate someone less acceptable to them.
Very classy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I woke up in an anxious fervor last night at 1am, checked my PC and saw Bernie lost all five states, and subsequently had nightmares all night. I've been maudlin all day!
There is no hope. Ideology runs too deep. Time to go back to Althusser :/
If Garland does get confirmed, it will give 5-4 a new meaning: 5 goyim, 4 Jews. Remember when there was "the Jewish seat," filled by Cardoza, Frankfurter, Fortas, et al? And all 5 goyim are Catholic. Remember when we WASPs ran the country?
I don't think the Republicans could do this, because it would violate the rules of the Senate. If the Senate doesn't act on a nomination during a session, the nomination lapses and the President must submit it to the Senate again in the new session, if he wants it reconsidered. If Clinton is elected, the new Senate could confirm Garland only if Obama submitted his name again before Clinton took office.
See p.6 here https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44083.pdf for the point about nominations.
I'm not sure if this is what Prof. Wolff meant, but the Senate could confirm Garland in a lame-duck session (irony drive engaged) between the election in November and the beginning of the new Congress. Waiting for the new Congress to begin would, ex hypothesi, mean a majority-Democrat Senate will have been sworn in, at which point either Obama or a new Democratic President could submit a nominee much less palatable to the right than Garland. My guess is Obama would let Hillary (assuming she's the Dem nominee and nothing weird happens between now and July)
If we really want to play "what-if," consider this possibility: What if a Republican president is narrowly elected, but the Democrats re-take the Senate (probably also narrowly)? Obama *could* either re-nominate Garland, OR submit a new, much more "liberal" nominee that the new Senate could ram through in the 17 days between the beginning of the new Congress and the inauguration of the new President.
Now THAT would really be a fine, final eff-you to the Republicans by Obama!
Post a Comment