Thoughts from Roger Simon:

Hillary is much better protected. She doesn’t need Johnny Cochran or the rest of the “Dream Team.” She’s got something even more powerful than low-rent appeals to racism and phony charades about gloves that are somehow too small. She’s got the president of the United States and the mainstream media in her corner. Working together, as they so often do, they have the ability to pervert justice, as we used to say, nine ways to Brooklyn. With their help, the chances of an indictment are slim, of a trial even thinner.

Were there to be a trial, however, and even if there weren’t, the real defendants would be the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law. They disappear if Hillary gets off — as does our country as we know it. I have written this before, but I can’t write it too many times. It’s that serious.

But in fairness to the other side — you are concerned about “fairness,” aren’t you — I will offer Hillary’s esteemed attorney David Kendall a properly mendacious catch phrase à la Cochran with which to wrap his summation dramatically: “If the emails are merely suspect, you must elect.”

I know it’s not as pithy — doesn’t have quite that certain je ne sais quoi — as “if the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” (Readers may have better suggestions.) But it should work under the circumstances.

And Ron Fournier seems to think (for some reason he has difficulty explaining) that presidential candidates should get special dispensation. I wonder if the political party matters in hat formulation?

Amazing.

[Update a few minutes later]

This seems related, somehow: Clinton superdelegate disbarred while awaiting prison. Funny how that sort of thing happens to so many people associated with the Clintons.

[Update a while later]

Hillary’s delusional media courtiers.

…the people ultimately decide. Some of my expanded thoughts on what the Senate’s “job” is, over at Ricochet.

Does the president have a “duty” to put forth a nominee? Does the Senate have a “duty” to consider him or her? No.

I’ve been meaning to write about this but, as noted there, “shall” does not necessary mean that it is a mandatory act, and there is no time limit on it. The president has the power to nominate, and the Senate has the power to advise and consent, but it is not incumbent upon either to do so. The Framers intent was not to insure that appointees were appointed, but that it not be done unilaterally by a single branch. In their desire to limit government powers, they made appointments, as with much else, difficult, and I doubt they’d be displeased by either the “Biden rule” or the current Republican stance.

The only real duties that either branch has are to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” It is ultimately up to the people to decide if they are doing so, and to rectify the situation if not.

If the president chooses not to nominate, he will be judged in the next election. If the Senate advises and consents by advising the president that they will not consent, they too will be judged in the next election, or at least a third of them will be (as it happens, the Republicans have 24 seats at risk in the fall). But the Senate is doing nothing unconstitutional in deciding to let the people decide.

[Update a while later]

Welp, Kasich said today that he might nominate Garland. So we have that going for us. #RINO