Yeah, I have no problem with Garland being renominated. It would be a dick move to nominate the guy, and then pull him. He's obviously qualified.
I would have expected more longtime Clinton supporters to reject the idea that she's obligated to stick with the previous president's failed (or stakemated, if you prefer) nominee.
I think, equally, picking someone else for the sake of it when there is someone eminently qualified already lined up and vetted is silly. He's not 'failed' ANYONE Obama put up, would be rejected.
However, I think the final decision would depend on the Senate. If she's only got a small majority, then I think there would be pressure to not go for the moon. However, a bit of a buffer and political momentum means she could pick someone a little more "risky". But again, I don't think she should bin Garland just 'cause.
