<< Probably Srinivasan | Main | Merrick Garland and Doubling Down >>


The Garland Pick and Doubling Down

| 4 Comments
Well, so much for predictions.  Merrick Garland was not the expected choice of many of those venturing a prediction.  Tom Goldstein had this handicapping at SCOTUSblog, and that blog's series of profile posts on potential nominees had not gotten around to Garland by announcement day.  Here at C&C, Bill Otis had this post early this morning.

I was hoping for a diversity pick.  Alas, confirmation of Judge Garland would leave us with nine Justices all of whom went to Harvard or Yale.

I have been browsing Judge Garland's criminal and related opinions and haven't found anything noteworthy either way yet.

Should the Senate confirm him?  Should Republicans even allow the machinery to start?

A "no" answer is, in effect, doubling down on the election.  A victorious President Hillary Clinton would likely nominate someone further into left-wing judicial activism, making the Scalia->X transition a even larger shift than the Marshall->Thomas transition, currently the largest single-appointment shift in modern history.  A victorious Republican candidate would likely appoint someone more aligned with Justice Scalia's views.

Is this a good hand to double down on?
In blackjack, after the first two cards are dealt, the player has the option to double his bet and take exactly one more card, thereby giving up the option to take more cards if the first one is small.

When would you do that?  When the expected value of increasing the bet is greater than the value you give up by limiting your options.  If your first two cards total 11 and the dealer's up card is a 5, you double down with gusto.  Your chances of winning the hand are excellent, so raising the stakes is to your advantage.  If you have 16 and the dealer is showing a 10-card (a 10 or a face card), you would be a fool to double down.  Your chances of winning are poor, and adding more to your bet makes no sense.

How good should Republicans be feeling about this election?  Generally, the American people have turned over the White House after two terms.  Only one candidate of an outgoing two-term President's party has won in the postwar era, George H. W. Bush, the Vice-President of a President who was very popular at that point.  Al Gore and Richard Nixon also came very close, to be sure.  Overall though, this should be a Republican year.

But never underestimate the ability of the Republican Party to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  There is a strong probability that Donald Trump will be the nominee, and he is very clearly the least electable of the Republican candidates in the general election.  See this post.

Do Republicans want to double down on this hand? 

The comments are open, for now.  The author of a post has the option to close them on this blog if the thread degenerates, and frankly we might start using that option more often.

4 Comments

Garland vs. Scalia on criminal justice issues that are important to the CJLF?

So far I haven't found much of a record. The DC Circuit doesn't have a large criminal docket, and it doesn't do state prisoner habeas cases at all.

Neither side wants to truly fill this seat. It is too good a campaign issue--a useful way to motivate your base. The GOP better be ready to get out on front on this nomination, unlike the way it did when Bork was nominated.

Kent, here's a good summary of Garland's criminal justice work (scroll about 1/3 of the way down):

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/04/the-potential-nomination-of-merrick-garland/

Written in 2010, but still applicable enough.

Leave a comment

Monthly Archives