Hillary under pressure to renominate Garland if she wins

[Virginiá]

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.

[Virginiá]

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.

It's strategy. Democrats for the next 8 years should focus on tearing down any remnants of a conservative judiciary. If Republicans want to continue leveraging state power to rig maps and Congressional power to obstruct everything, including judicial appointments, then we should go about reforming the judicial branch in its entirety to begin putting an end to some of the most egregious conservative power plays, such as gerrymandering and campaign finance deregulation - two things that a conservative judiciary has allowed to get way out of control.

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 don't even like the idea of this, but what do you do when the other side plays dirty, hoping you'll decide to be the better person while they screw you over every chance they get?

[Virginiá]

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.

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.

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.

I'm no longer advocating that Democrats be the better people while Republicans screw everyone over for their own benefit. I'd love for them to have a truce, but until then, that is my position on this matter. I just don't care anymore that it's a crappy position to hold.

And trust me, no matter how much you deny it, Dems only oppose gerrymandering when they're out of power. If they had a majority of governorships and state legislatures in a redistricting year, they'd gerrymander every state they could to no end, and the Republicans will be the ones being all #stopgerrymandering.

You're aware of the partisan composition of the states, right? Democrats are not going to be in a position where allowing gerrymandering for Congressional races will give them a net benefit for a long time. If we continue to hold the White House, there is very little chance of controlling a substantial number of critical legislatures in 2021 to rig the maps in a way that makes it worth it. Democrats, very likely for the next generation will benefit far more from banning Congressional gerrymandering than allowing it. To say otherwise is pretty stupid unless you think we are going to somehow sweep all/most of the legislatures and governors mansions in the South and rust belt before 2021-2022.

Frankly, I don't care why Democrats push to ban gerrymandering. I just want fair maps in every state so we can stop this blatant form of corruption. If Democrats do this purely for partisan purposes, fine by me, because in the end the will of the voters will mean more than under these bs maps.