Hillary under pressure to renominate Garland if she wins

[Lyin' Steve]

Good.  Garland is eminently qualified to be a supreme court justice and there's no good reason other than pure partisan hackery to withdraw his nomination.  Hillary shouldn't be imposing litmus tests or demanding that otherwise perfectly qualified supreme court justices conform to her ideology, and she certainly shouldn't go around picking the most liberal justices she can get away with.  What's the point of having the damn court if it's just nine seats for lucky presidents to stamp their ideology onto?

Hell, if she picked a John Roberts or Sarah Day O'Connor I'd be through the roof.  Maybe we can get back to just picking whoever the best judge in the country is at any particular time rather than whoever the most left- or right-leaning passable judge is.

[Lyin' Steve]

Good.  Garland is eminently qualified to be a supreme court justice and there's no good reason other than pure partisan hackery to withdraw his nomination.  Hillary shouldn't be imposing litmus tests or demanding that otherwise perfectly qualified supreme court justices conform to her ideology, and she certainly shouldn't go around picking the most liberal justices she can get away with.  What's the point of having the damn court if it's just nine seats for lucky presidents to stamp their ideology onto?

Hell, if she picked a John Roberts or Sarah Day O'Connor I'd be through the roof.  Maybe we can get back to just picking whoever the best judge in the country is at any particular time rather than whoever the most left- or right-leaning passable judge is.

Ugh, what a terrible false equivalency. After how the Republicans treated Garland, you'd blame Democrats as partisan hacks for withdrawing him?

The idea is that by replacing Garland with someone more liberal, you'd be prioritizing ideological goals over actual judicial theory.

And the GOP would've brought it on themselves. Let's not forget who started playing politics here with unprecedented obstruction of a qualified judge.

How come so many "independents" look the other way whenever the GOP does anything, but whenever the Democrats punch back, they are dismissed as partisan hacks or are "just as bad"?

And if it's because "the Democrats should be better than the Republicans", then why identify as an independent at all? You clearly hold the Democrats to a higher standard and have a higher opinion of them, presumably.

Because what the Republicans are doing is wrong but that doesn't mean I think the Democrats should do something wrong as well.  I'd prefer if the Democrats set the example by doing it the right way and then hope the Republicans follow suit.

Ultimately I'd like to pull our politics back towards sanity, and given the choice between scoring a small policy victory by sinking deeper into the mud or taking a step towards pulling us out of the mud, I'd take the latter.

[Lyin' Steve]

Good.  Garland is eminently qualified to be a supreme court justice and there's no good reason other than pure partisan hackery to withdraw his nomination.  Hillary shouldn't be imposing litmus tests or demanding that otherwise perfectly qualified supreme court justices conform to her ideology, and she certainly shouldn't go around picking the most liberal justices she can get away with.  What's the point of having the damn court if it's just nine seats for lucky presidents to stamp their ideology onto?

Hell, if she picked a John Roberts or Sarah Day O'Connor I'd be through the roof.  Maybe we can get back to just picking whoever the best judge in the country is at any particular time rather than whoever the most left- or right-leaning passable judge is.

Ugh, what a terrible false equivalency. After how the Republicans treated Garland, you'd blame Democrats as partisan hacks for withdrawing him?

The idea is that by replacing Garland with someone more liberal, you'd be prioritizing ideological goals over actual judicial theory.

And the GOP would've brought it on themselves. Let's not forget who started playing politics here with unprecedented obstruction of a qualified judge.

How come so many "independents" look the other way whenever the GOP does anything, but whenever the Democrats punch back, they are dismissed as partisan hacks or are "just as bad"?

And if it's because "the Democrats should be better than the Republicans", then why identify as an independent at all? You clearly hold the Democrats to a higher standard and have a higher opinion of them, presumably.

Because what the Republicans are doing is wrong but that doesn't mean I think the Democrats should do something wrong as well.  I'd prefer if the Democrats set the example by doing it the right way and then hope the Republicans follow suit.

Ultimately I'd like to pull our politics back towards sanity, and given the choice between scoring a small policy victory by sinking deeper into the mud or taking a step towards pulling us out of the mud, I'd take the latter.

I'm pretty sure the Democrats already tried that strategy for years. The Republicans won't change or learn a thing until they're punished at the ballot box, not only in presidential years, but in midterms as well. I mean, why would they? It did pay major dividends for them in 2010/2014, and likely will in 2018 as well.

Then the Democrats need to have a massive shift in focus towards activating their voting blocs during the midterms, and in the meantime maintain their integrity so they're actually worth voting for rather than sinking to the Congressional GOP's level.

[Lyin' Steve]

Good.  Garland is eminently qualified to be a supreme court justice and there's no good reason other than pure partisan hackery to withdraw his nomination.

He is qualified, but he's too old. Democrats would shortchange themselves by picking him instead of a younger, 50~ year old justice who would likely be on the bench almost twice as long. Why should Republicans get a gift like Garland after what they have done? A GOP president sure as hell wouldn't pick Garland in this situation, not if they knew they could nominate a younger conservative just by waiting.

It's one thing to pick by ideology, but age should be a major factor here. We have other candidates for this spot that would be better suited. In addition, Clinton should get to pick whoever she wants. Garland was a compromise pick, after all.

Age is a better argument than ideology, but you'd have to explain why age matters for any other reason than making that partisan ideological stamp last longer.
Also I think it's a shame that judges who have dreams of being on the Supreme Court are now being told that once they reach their 60s, at the peak of their judicial wisdom and experience, that they are too old for a lifetime appointment.

[Lyin' Steve]

If you just get into a fight of doing something really liberal or really conservative just to get back at the other side, then the other side gets in power and does the same, then you get in power again and do the same, it's an eternal psuedo-fistfight. That's not government. That's acting like children.

Yep

We can return to normal once the GOP agrees to stop its mass obstruction in the Senate, otherwise we need to consider that in the future, armed with a Senate majority, they may feel empowered to begin blocking SCOTUS/lower-court nominations even longer than they have now.

I agree that we shouldn't pay ransom, essentially, but the argument you're making here boils down to "we're going to be hyper-partisan until they stop being hyper-partisan."  They could use that exact same argument and keep the gridlock going forever... either that or we'll have to wait around until another Henry Clay comes to power and tries to use his power to bridge the divide rather than enacting his personal policy views.

[Lyin' Steve]

I completely understand this, believe it or not, but what should Democrats do? Roll over, play nice while Republicans continue to play dirty? I'm sick of it. Personally, I want their influence in the courts completely obliterated for what they have done to voting rights and campaign finance regulations.

Personally I think they should eat the center and run on a platform of balance, level-headedness, and anti-extremism.  Instead of playing the GOP's game, just continue to marginalize them until we have a situation like the 60s and 70s where policy debates are center-dems vs. left-dems instead of left vs. right and the GOP understands that it needs to fundamentally change to get back into the conversation.  It's not immediately gratifying but in the long run it's not only better for our country but will also end in achieving the party's goals.