One More PPDI

For a long time, my Web site has contained a list of pluperfect digital invariants (PPDIs) in bases 2 through 10. Recently, I have been finding and posting PPDIs in larger bases. I just revised the list of base-11 PPDIs, fixing minor (mostly formatting) errors and adding an order-9 PPDI that had been omitted, namely,

[10][7][8][10][7][7][4][0][7]₁₁

which is 2,295,894,300 in decimal notation.

My page of PPDIs now lists PPDI in bases 2 through 12. I am certain of the correctness of PPDIs in the first 10 bases, but I still have to recheck the base-12 list to be sure no numbers were omitted.

No doubt, most readers have no idea what this post is about. I have written it just in case it is of interest to someone who finds my blog. In particular, if anyone is relying on my base-11 list, he or she needs to know that the number above is also a PPDI.

Stop Donald Trump, Etc.

Readers may notice a few changes in the sidebar at the right. I removed the list of recent posts because the software that generated the titles no longer worked properly. You can always scroll down to see the most recent posts, of course, and you can also access a complete list of posts in the Blog Archive near the bottom of the sidebar. Remember that a similar list, along with information about each post is available in the blog Table of Contents. (See Links at the right.)

I have removed the Christian Diversity badge from the sidebar, not because I believe any less in Christian diversity, but because I needed the space for something more pressing. That more pressing need is to help elect a reasonable President of the United States.

The Republic might not survive a Donald J. Trump presidency. People of good sense and goodwill need to do everything in their power to prevent the catastrophe that would represent. In this spirit, I am displaying the graphic below, which will become a regular part of my blog’s sidebar.

I encourage readers to use this image freely on blogs, on Facebook, and elsewhere on the Web and off.

A design note: The text color in the above graphic was inspired by Mr. Trump’s hair. (Did you catch that?)

How We Vote, Part 3: Early Voting

Absentee ballots have long been available to voters who expect to be out-of-town on election day or for whom, due to disability, find voting at the usual polling place burdensome. In recent years, states have broadened the acceptable justifications for requesting an absentee ballot, so that, in many jurisdictions, if a voter wants an absentee ballot, one will be provided.

A newer idea is early voting, a procedure whereby a person may vote at a polling place some number of days before election day. Like absentee voting, early voting is intended to accommodate those for whom voting on election day is difficult or impossible. By making voting easier to schedule, early voting is intended to increase participation in elections.

Republican legislatures in several states have sought to curtail early voting recently by shortening the period before election day during which votes may be cast. Whatever rationale may have been advanced publicly for such changes, the clear intent has been to make it more difficult for voters thought to favor Democrats to cast ballots.

Liberals have condemned the new abbreviated early voting periods. To be sure, the motivation of Republican legislators has been reprehensible, but early voting deserves more scrutiny than it usually receives.

Early voting does indeed promise greater participation in elections by giving voters more opportunities to fit voting into their busy schedules. This primarily helps blue-collar voters, who are less able to take time off from work to vote than are their white-collar counterparts. It has the added benefit of diminishing waiting lines, particularly on election day. Long lines can cause voters to give up waiting in disgust and simply not voting at all.

Early voting has its drawbacks, however. Too long an early voting period can result in voters choosing candidates based on less information than is available to later-voting citizens. Early voters do not see late-running political ads or endorsements, and they cannot react to late-breaking news about candidates, either positive or negative. A candidate might even be arrested or die between the beginning of the early voting period and election day!

I was made keenly aware of the perils of voting early in the recent Pennsylvania primary. A friend who votes by absentee ballot because of mobility issues voted for one candidate because he was from the Pittsburgh area. (The other candidate considered was from Philadelphia.) Unlike most of her votes, this one was something of a stab in the dark for a lesser publicized office. I voted on election day and was inclined to employ the same logic for selecting a candidate as my friend. Shortly before election day, I learned of “my” candidate’s anti-choice leanings, however, and chose instead to vote for the candidate recommended by Planned Parenthood. My friend was sorry she mailed in her ballot early. (Pennsylvania does not provide for early voting, by the way, and does not allow for “no-excuse” absentee voting.)

There is merit to early voting, and Republican efforts to do away with it should be resisted. But voters can be given flexibility regarding voting dates without creating a lengthy early-voting period. A month or more is simply too long. I see no reason to allow more than a week for early voting, assuming that voters for whom this imposes a hardship can vote by absentee ballot.

Update, 10/1/2016. The presidential election is more than a month away, and several states are already allowing early voting. This is foolish. There are more presidential debates to follow and, no doubt, damaging revelations about one or both of the major candidates.

How We Vote, Part 2: Superdelegates

As the Democratic presidential primaries have progressed, Bernie Sanders has repeatedly complained about superdelegates. These are delegates to the Democratic National Convention who are mostly party leaders and Democratic officeholders. Superdelegates are not bound by the results of party primaries and can vote for whoever they like for their party’s standard bearer. Every Democratic member of Congress, for example, is a superdelegate. The lack of congressional endorsements is therefore of greater concern to Bernie Sanders than it might, at first, appear.

Going into the convention this summer, Hillary Clinton will have won more pledged delegates and received more votes than her opponent. In fact, she will likely have enough votes to win nomination even without the votes of superdelegates. Sanders only hope—a hope that, at this juncture seems completely irrational—is to prevent Clinton from winning an outright victory by virtue of accumulating pledged delegates and to convince virtually all of the superdelegates to vote for him. His quest for the nomination would be easier if there were no superdelegates, since a contested convention would then result if Clinton failed to garner sufficient pledged delegates.

Does the existence of superdelegates make the primary battle unfair? Does it make it undemocratic? I don’t think so. For one thing, superdelegates are inclined to go along with the will of the people, as expressed in the presidential primaries. This is what happened in 2008, when Barack Obama led Hillary Clinton in primary voting, albeit not by much. Perhaps more importantly, superdelegates provide insurance against Democratic voters selecting a candidate thought unelectable by the professional politicians. (Were Donald Trump running as a Democrat, I have no doubt that superdelegates would be voting for someone else.)

This is not to say that professional politicians have a corner on political wisdom, but they are professionals and, at the very least, are likely to have more informed and sophisticated judgement regarding political races.

Are not superdelegates supremely conservative in their effect? Don’t they make political revolutions impossible? Yes, they do, but this is not a bad thing. Bernie Sanders’ call for a revolutionary change in American politics is a naïve dream. The American ship of state does not turn on a dime; change takes time. Trying to change any other way leads to the French Revolution (or, at the very least, the Democratic Nevada Convention).

Despite what Senator Sanders thinks—and his rhetoric gets progressively angrier as has candidacy approaches definitive failure—superdelegates are not a plot to deny him the nomination. Instead, they provide a safety net for the Republic that, in this age of The Donald, looks like a very good thing.

There is no such safety net in November. If Americans elect Donald Trump, the United States will go over the edge, with unpredictable, though certainly terrible results.

How We Vote, Part 1: Open Primaries

In the long run-up to the 2016 presidential election, I have frequently found myself thinking about how we vote in this country, in general and in party primaries. I had planned to write one long essay on the subject, but it quickly became clear that such a plan was too ambitious, at least if I wanted to post something anytime soon. Instead, I am beginning a series of more modest posts about voting. I begin with the subject of open primaries, a completely arbitrary starting point. More essays will follow. As always, comments are welcome.

Open Primaries

Bernie Sanders has expressed frustration over how states like New York conduct presidential primaries. In particular, he has complained about the inability of independents to vote in the Democratic primary because he seems to be especially popular with such voters.

In fact, states like New York have it right, insofar as they are discriminating as to who can vote in a Democratic or Republican primary election. The purpose of presidential primaries is to help select the candidate who will best represent a given party in the general election in November.

It makes no sense to allow Democrats to vote for the Republican candidate or Republicans to vote for the Democratic candidate. Allowing such crossover voting invites mischief. A Democrat, for example, could choose to vote in the Republican primary not for the strongest candidate, but for the candidate thought easiest for a Democrat to beat. (I imagined a certain satisfaction I would have felt had I been able to vote in the Pennsylvania primary for Donald Trump, a sociopath supremely unqualified for holding high office.)

Allowing a member of one party to vote in another party’s primary distorts the results in both primaries, as one party obtains an extra vote, and the other party is deprived of a vote. This could have the effect of obscuring the popularity of particular candidates as well as the likely turnout of partisans in the general election.

Why shouldn’t a registered independent be allowed to vote in a Republican or Democratic primary, however? To answer that question, we need to think about what it means to register as an independent. Independents are treated differently in different states.

In New York, for example, a voter can register as a member of one of eight different parties, including the Green party and the Women’s Equality party. One can also specify a party not listed on the registration form. A voter can choose to check the box indicating that “I do not wish to enroll in a political party.” Moreover, New York does not allow a voter to change registration except far in advance of an election. It is clearly a state that doesn’t want voters gaming the system.

New York is unusual in listing so many parties on the voter registration form, but it is common for states to allow a party to be written in or for a voter to indicate allegiance to no party when registering. Most states allow registration changes closer to elections than does New York, the extreme case being implemented in states such as Colorado and Wyoming, which allow same-day registration.

No doubt, New Hampshire is a favorite state of Bernie Sanders. There, one can be unaffiliated and still vote in either the Democratic or Republican presidential primary. By voting in a primary, you are automatically registered in the party for which you cast a vote. Before you leave the polling place, however, you can re-register as an independent.

If you are registered as a minor party member, say the Libertarian party, you should not be allowed to vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary by the same logic advanced above—you should not be able to influence the decision-making of a party not your own.

A true independent (or uncommitted) voter, on the other hand, is one who has chosen not to be associated with any party. Many people, I suspect, eschew registration in a party out of frustration with the major parties (or parties in general) or because they feel a need for selecting candidates solely on their individual merit.

If you are unwilling to be associated with a particular party, however, why should that party allow you to participate in making one of its most important decisions? Senator Sanders would, no doubt, argue that allowing independents to vote in a party primary is helpful in predicting how swing voters will vote in the general election. There are at least two problems with this argument.

First, there is no direct way of knowing how independent voters have voted. Vote tallies do not tell us. Only through exit polling can we distinguish between the behavior of loyalist voters and independents. Like all polling, exit polling is subject to error.

Perhaps more importantly, the independence of uncommitted voters makes it difficult to know how they will vote in November. An independent voter who is allowed to vote for Sanders may well decide to vote for Donal Trump in November if the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton. Or the voter, strongly attached to neither major party, may simply stay home.

Thus, arguments for allowing independents to vote in party primaries are weak. Registering as an uncommitted voter in most states means opting out of partisan primaries. That is how it should be.

Postscript. One’s voter registration can be used to send a message. Registered independents are, in some sense, saying “a plague on both your houses.” As a young voter in Louisiana, I registered as a Republican. This meant opting out of choosing most office holders, since, in the time of the Democratic Solid South, election winners were really chosen in the Democratic primaries. My registration was really a vote for competitive elections in my home state. Alas, Louisiana politics are now as bad as ever, but it is the Republicans who are usually in control.

Episcopal Journal: We Deserve Answers

I recently wrote about the lack of transparency regarding the firings at the Episcopal Church Center. (See “Thoughts about Presiding Bishop Michael Curry’s Investigation Update.”) Since then, no additional information has been forthcoming from church headquarters.

No doubt, many Episcopalians are as frustrated as I about what happened at 815 Second Avenue. (In fact, the operation of the Episcopal Church Center is generally opaque.)

Under the circumstances, I was pleased to read an item (“From the Editor’s Desk”) in the May issue of Episcopal Journal. In it, editor Solange De Santis wrote that “[t]he letter announcing [the personnel actions taken by Presiding Bishop Michael Curry] was as notable for what it did not say as for what it did.” The piece concludes

Why should we have to rely on speculation? Episcopalians support the church’s main office with offerings and prayers. We would like to think that churchwide staff are working efficiently and upholding the principles of the denomination they serve. We deserve more substantive answers.

Perhaps Episcopalians should be emphasizing prayers over offerings.

Might Work, Might Not

Ted Cruz and John Kasich have cooked up an interesting scheme to help keep Donald Trump from accumulating the delegates needed to win the Republican nomination for president on the first ballot. They announced yesterday that Kasich will not campaign in Indiana, which has its primary on May 3. Cruz, on the other hand, will not contest the primary in Oregon on May 17 or that in New Mexico on June 7. The two candidates have encouraged their supporters to follow their lead in reducing competition in the three states. The agreement comes too late to have an effect on the April 26 primaries, and there is no agreement regarding contests in Nebraska, West Virginia, Washington, California, Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota, or South Dakota.

The theory behind this desperate move is that, with only two active candidates in these races, the non-Trump votes will be concentrated for either Cruz or Kasich, resulting in fewer delegates for Trump. This theory depends on voters (and, I suppose, independent campaign spenders) being as anti-Trump as are Cruz, Kasich, and other Republican Party leaders. Don’t count on it.

Will, for example, a Kasich supporter in Indiana vote for Cruz because Kasich has stepped aside? Were Cruz and Kasich very similar candidates, this might be likely. I think—I am greatly simplifying here—that Kasich is viewed as a center-right candidate and Cruz is viewed as a far-right candidate. Trump, on the other hand, is sui generis. One can easily imagine a Kasich voter viewing Trump as a reasonably second choice. Likewise, a Cruz voter might also see Trump as a viable second choice. One should therefore not assume that all the votes for the candidate stepping aside will go to the other non-Trump candidate. The effect might be to assure that Trump receives a majority of the votes. On the other hand, the candidate agreement may have little effect, as some voters will want to vote for their favored candidate no matter what.

The agreement between Cruz and Kasich may have the desired effect, but I doubt it.

Under God, In God We Trust

Some time ago, I published here an essay about the motto of the United States, “In God we trust,” and what many have assumed to be the motto of the nation, “E pluribus unum.” Because I had earlier written on my Web site about the addition of “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance, I thought my essay on the national motto should also be on my Web site.

A revised (and somewhat updated) version of “A Matter of Mottos” can now be found on Lionel Deimel’s Farrago here. My essay “The Pledge of Allegiance Revisited,” which is something of a companion piece, can be found here.

As you may have guessed, I think that “God” belongs neither on our currency nor in public schoolrooms at the start of the day. I’m sure that some readers will immediately agree with me. No doubt, others are already fighting mad. For those in the latter category, read the essays and see if your mind isn’t changed.

Update, 4/28/2016. Religion News Service ran a story January 19, 2016, about Michael Newdow who has tried through the courts to remove “God” from the Pledge and from our currency. Having failed using a First Amendment establishment clause argument, he has switched to citing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the misguided legislation that carried the day in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. No one seems to take Newdow seriously.

Taste Test

I don’t often buy sweetened soft drinks. I consume a fair amount of flavored and (more often) unflavored seltzer, however. I occasionally bring home tonic, which I drink straight and or with gin. In the rare instances when I do buy a sweetened drink, I usually buy the no-calory variety.

For some reason, I brought home both Schweppes Tonic Water and Schweppes Diet Tonic Water the other day. Today, I compared the taste of the two tonics. Being neither ConsumerReports nor America’s Test Kitchen, my procedure was rather unscientific. I did not do any sort of blind testing; I merely tasted the two products in succession from two shot glasses. I did two rounds of tasting.

I was surprised at the result of my taste test. Bottom line: (1) The drinks taste different; (2) The naturally sweetened version tasted very much better.

Most of the ingredients of the two drinks are the same, but, whereas the standard tonic contains high fructose corn syrup, the diet variety contains sodium saccharin and sodium citrate. The differences are responsible for the fact that the plain tonic has more calories (130/12 oz vs. 0/12 oz.) but less sodium (55 mg./12 oz. vs. 105 mg./12 oz.).

Arbitrarily, I tasted the diet tonic first. It was bitter, of course, which one expects from quinine. The regular tonic was also bitter, but it lacked an unpleasant edge present in the diet version. Instead, it had a smoother, fuller taste. I don’t know that I can say much more than that, but I quickly resolved never to buy Schweppes Diet Tonic Water again.

Now, I need to look into Canada Dry offerings.

Thoughts about Presiding Bishop Michael Curry’s Investigation Update

As Episcopalians who follow church news closely are well aware—see ENS story here—Presiding Bishop Michael Curry, shortly after he was officially installed in his current position and while recovering from a head injury, put three members of the church top management team on administrative leave, pending investigation of undisclosed charges.

Two days ago, a press release detailed the actions taken as a result of that investigation. Mr. Sam McDonald, Deputy Chief Operating Officer and Director of Mission, and Mr. Alex Baumgarten, Director of Public Engagement and Mission Communications, “were found to have violated established workplace policies and to have failed to live up to the Church’s standards of personal conduct in their relationships with employees, which contributed to a workplace environment often inconsistent with the values and expectations of The Episcopal Church.” They have been fired.

Curry explained that Bishop Stacy Sauls, Chief Operating Officer of the DFMS, “did not violate workplace policy, was unaware of the policy violations of the two staff members reporting to him, and operated within the scope of his office.” He is, however, being removed as Chief Operating Officer.

The aforementioned press release said nothing more about the nature of the policy violations, the period during which they were committed, or the circumstances that allowed them to occur. Although Bishop Curry has explained actions being taken in response to those violations, there is no suggestion that additional information or an explanation for the lack of information will be forthcoming.

I have been surprised that the reaction to the limited disclosure provided by the church has largely been taken at face value on social media. People have expressed relief that the problems, whatever they may have been, have been appropriately handled. In general, people have shown little inclination to demand additional information.

My reaction has been different. Dissatisfaction with the professional staff of the Episcopal Church Center is widespread, and conflicts between that staff and the church’s Executive Council are endemic. That financial improprieties have occurred in church administration in the not-so-distant past does not inspire great confidence. Nor do various past personnel decisions. Recent attempts to polish the reputation of the staff at 815 Second Avenue have seemed more superficial than substantial.

I believe that greater transparency is needed here. Episcopalians, who are paying for church administration, deserve more than a “don’t trouble your little heads about this; daddy is taking care of it.” I appreciate that, as a personnel matter, there may be substantial restrictions on what can be said publicly. On the other hand, people might feel differently about, say, stealing paper clips, than they would about staff members being pressured for sex. Since complaints were apparently made by multiple staff members, who are now being offered counseling, one is inclined to suspect that the offenses were closer to the latter than the former.

We don’t need to know all the gory details of what happened, but at least a hint of the nature of the problem would be helpful. Why did this happen? Is it likely to happen again? Are there structural changes that might need to be made and that might require action by the General Convention? What role did Executive Council play in this affair? Did Council members know anything? If not, why not?

This, of course, raises questions also about Bishop Jefferts Shori and Bishop Sauls. Given that Bishop Sauls is being removed from his position suggests that he should have known what was going on. Should the former Presiding Bishop have known? I don’t know. One suspects that Sauls was either not paying attention or was willfully ignorant of ongoing problems.

I do not want to initiate a witch hunt, but I cannot help feeling that there are systemic problems that may need to be addressed through dramatic changes. Bishop Sauls’ rebranding the church administrative mechanism as the “Missionary Society,” as though it was somehow distinct from and above The Episcopal Church, may have resulted in disconnects on both sides of the relationship. Did the denizens of 815 forget they were serving The Episcopal Church and our Lord Jesus Christ? In any case, what, exactly, does the church expect its professional staff to do? The answer isn’t clear.

Finally, there will be personnel changes coming to the Episcopal Church Center, and there may be organizational changes as well. Without knowing what problem we are solving, how can Episcopalians have confidence in the purported “solution”?

Update, 4/13/2016. Religion News Service has published a story quoting experts arguing for and against further disclosure.

National Poetry Month 2016

National Poetry Month is here again. This year is the 20th such celebration. Read some poetry today. You can read my own poetry on my Web site here. Read other poems here.

Click on image for a larger version.

Thank You, Donald Trump

Yesterday, Donald Trump accomplished what had seemed impossible. He simultaneously pissed off both pro-choice and anti-choice activists. The candidate told Chris Matthews that, should abortion again become illegal, women undergoing abortions should suffer some legal penalty.

It’s easy to understand why the pro-choice community—perhaps I should say the freedom for women community—was appalled by Trump’s remark. It suddenly became clear that Trump not only wanted to restrict women’s freedom; he wanted to punish them as well. If Trump loves women, as he frequently claims, thank God he doesn’t dislike women. Perhaps he would put them all in jail. Who knows?

It is less obvious why abortion opponents were equally appalled by the Republican front-runner. It turns out that that community has consciously avoided suggesting that women having abortions should face punishment. The anti-abortion crowd has demonized abortion providers but has not wanted to tarnish their “pro-life, pro-women” image they have so carefully (and cynically) cultivated.

Well, Trump has given the freedom for women movement a gift. If abortion is murder, as the “pro-lifers” contend, then why would we not punish women if abortion is again outlawed? If a woman hires a hit man to, say, kill her husband, do we not punish the woman as well as the actual murderer? Well, abortion doctors do not go around looking for pregnant women on which to ply their trade. No, desperate, pregnant women seek them out. If abortion is murder, is this not solicitation to murder?

It turns out that the “pro-life” activists are even nastier and more radical than we thought they are. Good to know.

Thank you again, Donald.

P.S. Trump, having been criticized by virtually everyone, of course, quickly retracted his anti-woman remark.

Four Political Limericks

Over the past week, I’ve written limericks about the major presidential candidates—Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders. I first posted the limericks on Facebook, which yielded some useful feedback. I have now revised the poems and posted them on my Web site. You can read the final products in “Political Limericks for 2016.”

Why a Democrat Must Select the Next Supreme Court Justice

The importance of filling the currently vacant Supreme Court seat with a justice considerably to the left of the idiosyncratic Antonin Scalia cannot be overestimated. The image below is meant to suggest what is really at stake. Although most Americans will be oblivious of the actual significance of filling the seat once occupied by Justice Scalia, this issue alone is reason enough to vote for the Democrat in November, no batter who it is, and not for the Republican, no matter who that is.

Click on the image for a larger version.

Taking Republican Thinking to Its Logical Conclusion

Republican Senators conveniently have found (i.e., invented out of thin air) the principle that a president should not be granted a Supreme Court nominee in his last year in office. Supposedly, this is so that “the people,” through the upcoming presidential election, will have a say in who is appointed. Of course, “the people” never have a direct voice in Supreme Court nominations, and they have twice elected President Barack Obama. President Obama has exercised his constitutional duty in nominating Judge Merrick Garland.

If one is to take Senate Republicans seriously, putting aside the obvious fact that they simply do not want the balance on the Supreme Court to change and are willing to use any political chicanery they can think of to to postpone it, then the principle should be taken to its logical conclusion.

The Senate of the 114th Congress comprises 54 Republicans, 44 Democrats, and 2 Independents. Republicans control the Senate by virtue of their majority. However, the terms of 24 Republicans and 10 Democrats expire next January. They are, in other words, in the final year of their terms. One might just as well argue that the short-term Senators are really in a situation no different from that of President Obama. Shouldn’t these short termers recuse themselves from voting on Supreme Court nominees, letting voters determine who gets to make decisions regarding the Supreme Court? If Senators in their last year of office are recused from voting on Supreme Court nominees—maybe they should refrain from voting on anything at all—we would effectively have a Senate of 30 Republicans, 34 Democrats, and 2 independents, i.e., a Democratic majority.

Of course, all this is silly. Presidents are elected for four years; Senators are elected for six years. Their powers expire on their last day in office and not before.

Let the Senate refuse to deal with the Garland nomination. President Hillary Clinton can then nominate a young, genuine liberal to the court. Then the Republicans will be sorry. Both political and poetic justice will be served.

On the Senate Republicans’ Principle

Click for a larger image.

Why Indeed!

Click on image for a larger view.

Sometimes a Space Makes a Difference

Open compounds often become closed compounds over time. For example, “rail road” long ago became “railroad.” More often than not, whether a term is written as an open or closed compound does not really affect meaning. I, personally, object to “fundraising,” rather than “fund raising,” but I have no trouble understanding text using either rendering.

Not always is meaning preserved when words are run together, and surprising results can emerge when the words in question are not nouns or adjectives. This thought came to mind as I read a story from Huffington Post about LGBT rights in Africa. The article contained this sentence:

As new laws have been signed this year, I could be put in prison for life in Uganda if I were to marry a man, and I could go to prison for 14 years in Nigeria if I were to have a meal with other LGBT people and just talk—my parents could go to jail as well if they didn't turn me into authorities.

What should have been written, of course, is “turn me in to authorities,” not “turn me into authorities,” which sounds like some sort of magic trick.

Thoughts on the Nomination of Merrick Garland

A few minutes ago, President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to fill the Supreme Court vacancy caused by the death of Antonin Scalia. As soon as the White House press conference on the lawn was over, Senator Mitch McConnell reiterated his position on the Senate floor that “the American people should have a say” on the next Supreme Court justice. (Of course, the elected the current president twice. Apparently, this doesn’t count.)

I had hoped for the nomination of a young, liberal, Protestant candidate, preferably a woman and preferably an ethnic minority.Frankly, I am disappointed by Mr. Obama’s appointment. On the other hand, a nominee of the sort I had hoped for had  a vanishingly small chance of actually being confirmed.

Judge Garland clearly was chosen because he is an experienced, centrist judge, who has already been confirmed by the Senate for a position on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Objectively, he is one of the best qualified conceivable candidates for elevation to the high court. He is older than most Democrats expected or hoped for. Judge Garland has but a single problem. He has been nominated by a Democrat when the Senate is controlled by a hateful band of ultra-partisan Republicans.

Does Judge Garland have a chance of being seated on the Supreme Court? Probably not much of one. A groundswell of support from the country might change a few Republican minds in the Senate, but an excellent, though centrist, nominee is not likely to ignite much Democratic passion.

Politically, the nomination of Judge Garland may be quite savvy. If he is not confirmed, as seems likely, and a Democrat wins the presidency, as also seems likely, the next nominee will surely be someone more liberal or even—Republicans would hate this—Barack Obama himself. In other words, although Senate Republicans may not want to confirm—or even consider—Judge Garland, they may be forced to confirm someone much less to their liking.

The best (and even likely) scenario is this: the Senate fails to act on the president’s nomination, Hillary wins the election, the Republicans lose their Senate majority, and President Hillary will be able to nominate and have confirmed whoever she wants on the court.

Fail-Safe Backup Plan

Click on image for a larger version.