Supreme Court Choice and Sen. Hatch

Senator Orrin Hatch's defense of Republican intransigence, about acting upon the President's Supreme Court nomination, is rife with misstatements, misleading pronouncements and illogical argument.

The Senate has never before refused to, or ever declared  in advance of a nomination that it will not, act upon any proposed nominee. In the past every nominee has been accorded a hearing and an up or down vote (unless the nomination was withdrawn). The assertion that the Senate has never acted upon a nomination this late in a president's final term is simply false.

Sen. Hatch ignores the plain fact that the people have spoken by electing the President, who has a constitutional duty to fill judicial vacancies, just as the senators have a duty to consider and act upon his nominees. If Supreme Court vacancies may only be filled during times of political serenity, as Sen. Hatch implies, the Court's membership may never be made whole.

How to Read the Polls

The latest polls show that Clinton and Trump are now in a statistical dead heat with a small edge to Trump. The polls also indicate that Sanders would defeat Trump handily, by as much as 15 percent points. I am not a statistician but it would seem the obvious explanation for this anomalous projection is that many Sanders supporters when polled, are either not expressing a preference as between Clinton and Trump or are favoring Trump in order to enhance the status of their own candidate in his head to head match up with Trump. If that is so, the compelling conclusion is that a large number of these Sanders supporters will ultimately vote for Clinton in the general election (if they vote at all) rather than risk a Trump presidency. Thus, Trump's apparent strength in the polls, vis a vis Clinton, is probably illusory. Of course, things may turn out very differently if the Libertarian Party ticket includes William Weld, a candidate likely to have strong appeal to socially progressive and fiscally conservative voters.