Florida/Michigan superdelegates are out

Because everyone, including the Times, seems to have problems understanding this, let's look at the language of the DNC delegate selection rules (last sentence is key):

Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation. [emphasis added]

The Rule governing unpledged delegates is actually Rule 9.A (8.A deals with district-level pledged delegates), but that's just a typo. It's quite clear that the rules call for the complete barring of the superdelegates, regardless of the fate of the normal delegates. Of course, the Rules Committee can do whatever it wants, but if it simply reverses its earlier decision to unseat all delegates, and seats half of them, the superdelegates will still not be seated.

Those who do a close reading of Rule 9.A. might object that this clause does not bar unpledged add-on delegates, which are discussed in Rule 9.B. Florida has 3 such delegates, and Michigan has 2. (A TPM post notes that these add-ons are actually a tricky issue, and not really "unpledged.")