Democracy in America

ON MARCH 16th, in a move that may test the mettle of recalcitrant Senate Republicans, Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland, a widely respected and politically moderate judge, to fill the late Antonin Scalia’s Supreme Court seat. Mr Obama presented Mr Garland as a “serious man and exemplary judge” who is “uniquely prepared” for the job. He is one of “America’s sharpest legal minds...who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even-handedness and excellence”, the president said.

VOTER turnout in Illinois appeared to have beaten the record set in the primary elections of 2008, when Barack Obama, who had adopted Chicago as his hometown, and Hillary Clinton, who was born in Chicago, were opponents on the Democratic Party’s ballot. In other election years both parties had pretty much settled on their candidate by the time Illinois—as well as Ohio, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina and the Northern Mariana Islands’ commonwealth—got to vote. This time was different, because voters realised how much was at stake.

MOST front-page Supreme Court stories involve fraught cases, closely divided votes and biting dissents. But the justices achieve unanimity much more often than they find themselves split 5-4 (or this spring, with their depleted bench, 4-4) and occasionally those unanimous rulings are big news.

FISTICUFFS? Mooning? A hand-measuring contest? Had Thursday’s Republican debate at the University of Miami followed the tonal trajectory of the previous 11, who knows what depths of taste and egomania it might have fathomed. But, from the candidates’ opening statements, in which Donald Trump went after Hillary Clinton, eschewing his attacks on Lyin’ Ted [Cruz] and Little Marco [Rubio]—epithets that remained unspoken throughout the evening—the atmosphere was different. Next came reasonably serious discussions of trade and visa policy. Perhaps concerned for her channel’s ratings, CNN’s moderator asked Mr Cruz:  “Did you just compare Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton?

IF ANY moderate Republicans appalled by Donald Trump tuned in to the Democratic presidential debate held in Miami on March 9th, what they heard cannot have made it easier for them to consider lending their vote—for one election at least—to Hillary Clinton. From the start Mrs Clinton was under pressure to tack to the left and woo her party’s core supporters in this, her last scheduled TV debate with her populist rival, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. On some big questions, and especially on immigration, she gave in to that pressure and staked out radical positions which she can expect to see played in Republican attack ads again and again, once the general election is under way.

HEADING into the primary votes in Michigan, Mississippi, Idaho and Hawaii on March 8th, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton appeared to be headed in opposite directions—and so it turned out. Mr Trump pulled off his second super Tuesday in a fortnight; he won the two biggest states, Mississippi and Michigan by big margins, thereby completing a near sweep of the South and opening a new front for his populist campaign in the Midwest. Mrs Clinton had a more mixed experience; she won easily in Mississippi but lost narrowly to Bernie Sanders in Michigan, where polls had put her more than 20 percentage points ahead.

BERNIE SANDERS came to the seventh Democratic debate, held in Flint, Michigan, on March 6th needing a game-changing success. Despite winning the Maine caucuses the same day and in Kansas and Nebraska the day before, the senator is badly lagging Hillary Clinton in the delegate count and, moreover, looks ill-equipped to close the gap. He has a strong following with youngsters and white liberals—who dominated the Democratic electorate in those three states; but little support from the non-whites who matter much more in most others—including Michigan, which will hold its primary on March 8th.