Should Hillary renominate Garland

[politicallefty]

No, she is under no obligation to do so. However, whether or not she should actually do so depends on how the Senate turns out. Some people have already posted the way I'm thinking.

I think Democrats will need 52 seats to use the nuclear option on Day 1 of the 115th Congress on January 3rd. If you look at the nuclear option from 2013, there were three Democratic defections: Joe Manchin, Mark Pryor, and Carl Levin. Levin was someone that believed in the institutions of the Senate. I don't think we have to have the same worries about his successor, Gary Peters. Mark Pryor was defeated by Tom Cotton, so that's a moot point. So, the only current sitting member of the Democratic Caucus that voted against the nuclear option in 2013 is Joe Manchin. I prefer to prepare for the worst case scenario where he does the same again.

Now, the reason I say 52 instead of 51 assuming Manchin defects is that you really have to prepare for a surprise. I would be worried about someone like Bayh is he's part of the majority. If Democrats have at least 52 seats in the Senate after November, she should nominate someone brand new. That alongside with a Hillary victory, I have no doubt President Obama would withdraw his nomination if that's what she wanted. To be honest, in any event, I would expect President Obama to defer to a President-elect Hillary Clinton.

At 51 seats, things are tight, but the above scenario is still possible.

If we're in a 50-50 Senate, I don't think Democrats would have the votes to go thermonuclear. It would probably be best to let the nomination stand and see if all Democrats could be united to end the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations. I doubt it though, and that would be reason enough to either let Garland be confirmed in the lame-duck session or renominated in January.

Obviously, if Hillary is elected with a Republican Senate, there would be no choice but to push for Garland (whether in the lame-duck or in January).