Keeping an eye on criminal law necessarily involves keeping an eye on politics. What are we likely to see in the 112th Congress in terms of its willingness to move criminal law in the right or wrong direction?
Real Clear Politics' "Battle for the House" page shows a strong possibility of a Republican takeover. With 218 needed for a majority, the Republicans need to win the seats categorized as safe, likely, or leaning theirs (or, if there are upsets, an equal number on each side) plus about 1/3 of the seats rated "toss ups." That is likely, particularly in light of the "enthusiasm gap" consistently shown in the polls.
The Senate is the more important of the two houses, though, given its role in judicial confirmations. In the "Battle for the Senate" page, the small print says "51 Seats Needed for Majority," but actually the Dems need only 50: tie goes to the Veep. Using the same assumption of zero or equal upsets, the Republicans would have to "run the table" of all 6 toss-ups to take control. Change is possible, again considering the enthusiasm gap, but it is much less likely than in the House.
On the other hand, "control" means less in the Senate, where many actions require supermajorities. This applies to judicial nominations as well, after the Democrats established a practice of routine filibuster of nominees during the Bush Administration. A majority of 51 means a party gets the committee chairs, but it doesn't mean the ability to ram its agenda through.
So what do we get in criminal legislation with the Republicans having a narrow majority in the House, the Senate almost evenly divided, and a member of the Democratic party's lefter wing in the White House? Probably stalemate, for the most part. Major legislation will require genuine bipartisan consensus. That happens occasionally, as in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, but it's not common. Stalemate would be an improvement over the present situation. We've been pretty much holding our breath since 2006, wondering what damage Congress will do.
On judicial nominees, President Obama may have to lean toward less plainly activist candidates, as President Clinton did after 1994. We shall see.
Real Clear Politics' "Battle for the House" page shows a strong possibility of a Republican takeover. With 218 needed for a majority, the Republicans need to win the seats categorized as safe, likely, or leaning theirs (or, if there are upsets, an equal number on each side) plus about 1/3 of the seats rated "toss ups." That is likely, particularly in light of the "enthusiasm gap" consistently shown in the polls.
The Senate is the more important of the two houses, though, given its role in judicial confirmations. In the "Battle for the Senate" page, the small print says "51 Seats Needed for Majority," but actually the Dems need only 50: tie goes to the Veep. Using the same assumption of zero or equal upsets, the Republicans would have to "run the table" of all 6 toss-ups to take control. Change is possible, again considering the enthusiasm gap, but it is much less likely than in the House.
On the other hand, "control" means less in the Senate, where many actions require supermajorities. This applies to judicial nominations as well, after the Democrats established a practice of routine filibuster of nominees during the Bush Administration. A majority of 51 means a party gets the committee chairs, but it doesn't mean the ability to ram its agenda through.
So what do we get in criminal legislation with the Republicans having a narrow majority in the House, the Senate almost evenly divided, and a member of the Democratic party's lefter wing in the White House? Probably stalemate, for the most part. Major legislation will require genuine bipartisan consensus. That happens occasionally, as in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, but it's not common. Stalemate would be an improvement over the present situation. We've been pretty much holding our breath since 2006, wondering what damage Congress will do.
On judicial nominees, President Obama may have to lean toward less plainly activist candidates, as President Clinton did after 1994. We shall see.
Leave a comment