The Supreme Court if Clinton had won

[diptheriadan]

I read somewhere (either here or reddit) that the reason why Mitch McConnell refused to even allow a hearing for Garland was because he knew there just weren't enough votes for even a moderate like Garland. Recognizing the PR disaster that would have been and knowing the precedent Biden (arguably) set, he did what he did in OTL.

Assuming this is true (which if it isn't, feel free to explain why), I can't help but wonder how the SC nomination battle would have turned out.

Another question: Would it have been possible or likely for a Democratic Senate post-2016 to invoke the nuclear option?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

First of all does Democrats control the Senate under this scenario or it's still in Mitch's hands?

[TML]

First of all does Democrats control the Senate under this scenario or it's still in Mitch's hands?

It's hard to say for sure.

In 2016, the tipping point Senate race was Wisconsin (R+3.4). Two other Republican wins were closer: Missouri (R+2. and Pennsylvania (R+1.4). For WI & PA, the Republican senate margins of victory were greater than the presidential margins of victory, for MO, it was smaller. However, Democratic Senate candidates in WI & PA had been favored to win according to polling.

If I had to guess, however, I would say that there's at least a 5-in-6 chance that Democrats would have taken over the Senate in the event of a Clinton presidential victory.

[diptheriadan]

First of all does Democrats control the Senate under this scenario or it's still in Mitch's hands?

Either/or.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

SEN DEMS, even if it was under GOP hands would recess appoint Garland; therefore, Mitch wouldn't been able to refuse a vote the following year on Garland due to him already in place, or it would have been an election issue in 2018.

[dw93]

Garland gets rammed through in a lame duck session to prevent Clinton and a Democratic Senate (if they retake the Senate) from appointing/confirming someone more liberal to replace Scalia. Ginsberg and Breyer are replaced by Clinton sometime between Jan 20 2017 and January of 2019.

[Pericles]

If the GOP keeps the Senate then they leave the seat vacant for the next 4 years (as some floated doing at the time), so it's a 4-4 Supreme Court. If the Democrats win the Senate, Garland is confirmed but Kennedy doesn't retire so it's a 5-4 left-wing Court. If Kennedy does end up dying or having serious health problems before 2021 irl, then there could be a vacancy but by that point the GOP would control the Senate and so would just leave that seat vacant until after the 2020 election anyway.

[S019]

I think Clinton's victory carries Katie McGinty over the top in PA

So you have a 51-49 R Senate (McConnell still controls what votes to bring to the Senate)

So instead, Clinton appoints a Republican senator from a state with a Democratic governor to a cabinet post (let's say Cory Gardner as Attorney General (to end GOP whining about the email investigation)

Gov. Hickenlooper picks a Democrat, let's say Diana DeGette

So now, Dems control the Senate 50-50, with the tie-breaking vote of VP Tim Kaine (whose replacement was Lt. Gov Ralph Northam)

However, even if Collins votes in favor, I doubt Manchin or Heitkamo, would vote to actually confirm Garland, plus there is the situation, where you can still filibuster SCOTUS nominees, and I see Collins and Manchin (probably Heitkamp too), voting no on the nuclear rule.

So, instead Clinton is forced to nominate even more of a moderate (someone ideologically similar to Ben Nelson, Brian Sandoval, or Bruce Rauner), this nominee easily gets more than 60 votes, with the far-right and far-left in opposition. This centrist, but conservative leaning judge, moves the court left, becoming the new median, of course, I'm not sure who this judge would be, but that is the choice that Clinton would be left if

[Kingpoleon]

I imagine that Kennedy retires in 2019 once the GOP holds the Senate. Clinton nominates Kent Syverud, Gillian Lester, Jedediah Purdy, or Heather Gerken - someone from academic circles, like Kagan.

RBG probably retires in 2017, and is replaced by someone like Ketanji Brown Jackson. Breyer is probably replaced by Sri Srinivasan or Leondra Kruger.

[SInNYC]

NYT had an article (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/25/us/politics/how-clintons-or-trumps-nominees-could-affect-the-balance-of-the-supreme-court.html) listing likely Clinton nominees.  Basically, all 4 are slightly to Garland's right: Srinivisan, Millett, Watford Kelly