[On a side note, I think the next President should nominate Garland (if he's still available to be nominated) just as a means of restoring some trust to the nomination process, even if he ends up being voted down, in which case people can say that he was at least given the fair hearing he deserved.]
Nah, he'll be 68 in the next presidential term. I love me some Merrick Garland but that's a waste of a Supreme Court nomination.
Let's be honest, Obama picked Garland as the most "acceptable" (or so he hoped) candidate for the Republican-controled Senate to confirm in the last year of his Presidency. He would've picked someone younger and more liberal under diffrent circumstances.
So yes, renominating Garland just to "stick it" to the GOP yields little reward.
