Did Clinton Avoid Mentioning Judge Garland to Goad Senate Republicans Into Confirming Him?

Jason Steed:

My theory: If we get deep into August and the polls are showing not only a strong lead for Clinton but also promising leads in enough of those senate races, it will take only credible whispers of withdrawing Garland’s nomination to make the Republicans nervous enough to go ahead and confirm him before the election. And how do you create a credible threat of withdrawal? By taking the stage before millions of viewers for a week to talk about goals and priorities, and the importance of the Supreme Court, without mentioning Garland. There was an effort to rally Democratic voters behind the importance of appointing the right people to the Supreme Court—but no effort to rally Democratic voters behind Garland. Why? Because absenting Garland from the DNC was a signal. The Party didn’t commit itself to Garland. Clinton didn’t commit herself to Garland. Even Obama didn’t push for Garland. The signal: after this week, the possibility of withdrawing Garland on November 9 is real.

That could well be the play. I still think the most likely scenario is no Garland confirmation before the election; no withdrawal; and Senate Republicans allow a vote to confirm Garland in the lame duck if Clinton wins and Democrats retake the majority (knowing full well that the Democrats or Republicans will eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees just as soon as it is necessary to confirm a preferred nominee to do so).

Share this: