Year: 2016

The President appoints and the Senate confirms. If the Senate abstains, the appointment stands.

There is a fun legal theory floating around advocating one way the Obama administration could resolve the mess over Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court. In brief, the theory says this: A few months from now, Garland could just show up at the Supreme Court building and start working. Okay, it’s a legal theory, so it is much more complicated than that. But Garland pulling on his judicial robe and plunking himself down in Antonin Scalia’s seat without so much as a fare-thee-well from Mitch McConnell....

What we think of as the "advise and consent" process is nothing but the accretion of tradition. The GOP Senate has overturned tradition, so what is the new process? President Obama has a hand in forming that new tradition and seating a new Supreme Court Justice while the Senate abstains should be the next step.

Jonah Goldberg: “If Trump misses the mark by, say, 150 delegates, that would be significantly more than the delegate totals of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina combined. It’s one thing to deny the trophy to the guy who finished a few yards shy of the finish line. It’s another if he misses it by a mile. The bigger the shortfall, the easier it is to persuade delegates that they are not defying the popular will by denying Trump, particularly given the widespread conviction that Trump would be crushed in a general election (with the GOP being torn apart in the process).” “Cruz would be the most likely victor in a floor fight, but that isn’t assured. The longer the balloting goes, the more likely it is that the bitter and bleary-eyed delegates will opt to order off-menu. That’s what Kasich is allegedly counting on. But Kasich is widely disliked, and it might be a good deal easier to find a unifying candidacy in, say, Rick Perry, Scott Walker, Nikki Haley, or Mike Pence.”

Take the quiz. Identify which statement was copied from which candidates web page, and I'll post the correct answers in the comment section this afternoon. Deficit: A: "For too long, Democrats and Republicans have spent trillions of dollars the nation didn't have." B: "Eliminate wasteful spending that is draining our nation's economic resources. An $19 trillion national debt is unacceptable." Jobs: A: "Reclaim high tech and low tech manufacturing jobs to enable more Americans to work. Too many jobs have moved overseas. Strong export industries like aerospace and agriculture need to be nurtured." B: "Delawareans are not just competing against other Americans for good jobs -- they are competing against an increasingly educated workforce around the world. By investing in innovation and building the industries of the future, the U.S. will continue to grow and maintain the world's leading economy." Education: A: "...states and school districts should have flexibility in determining how best to educate their students." B: "Local control of education needs to be increased and maintained." National Security: A: "Address our border control problems in order for Americans to reclaim our sense of security. Current immigration laws are not being properly enforced. A weak border complicates immigration reform and is a threat to our national security. Unvetted immigrants should not be allowed entry into the United States. B: I firmly believe that America should be focused on nation-building here at home, not abroad, I feel strongly that we must maintain a counterterrorism infrastructure that ensures a tragedy like September 11th will never happen again.

David Plouffe:

Ok, you say. We get that Clinton has built a strong delegate lead. But she should be able to close this out with more strength, winning the vast majority of the remaining states. And if she doesn’t, it shows weakness for the general election. Well, [...] [a]t this time eight years ago, ]President Obama] too had an all but insurmountable delegate lead. But in the last 9 contests, we lost 6 of them. Now, we had some issues like Rev Wright we were fighting thru. And Hillary Clinton campaigned admirably. But we predicted those losses long before based on the results we were seeing in the earlier primaries and caucuses. Even as we were moving towards the nomination, and ultimately the Presidency, we knew we would lose a bunch of states in the latter part of the primary calendar. Some suggested it showed weakness or would hurt us in the general. History suggests otherwise.

Bernie had an expected good weekend, and some fools decided that it meant he was absolutely going to be the nominee, despite the math, despite the upcoming slate of primaries that all favor Hillary by large margins, despite the history that Plouffe so expertly lays out. Boy, some of you are going to have to eat a lot of crow in May. Do you like Ketchup to go with it?