haresfur wrote:
 

He was. And the senate, led by that mealy fuckwit mitch mcconnell jr. blocked him for no legitimate reason.  Supreme court nominees should be a compromise. They should be people that we all agree can make rational decisions that would fairly consider the reasoning from 'our' side, no matter which side that is.  It's fine if they are conservative, or liberal, but they should be acceptable to all.  And Garland should have been. He was a good choice (even if the reason was compromise). He deserves that seat.   I know it won't happen because politics and the culture war we are in demands that we put the youngest possible person in place to have a reliable vote for the longest time. But that reasoning just gives the other side (no matter which side) reasons to question the legitimacy of the court, and it does it ofr the longest time. 

It's really important that people have faith in their government. The problems of the electoral college, and the disproportionate senate representational power are looming along with a growing distrust of the court. If nothing is done, we will eventually reach a tipping point where a sizable portion of the populace won't feel they have any recourse through the system they live under. When that happens what are their options?  If they can't get a 'bernie' style person into the system, they will want to opt out of the system. Then the only recourse the system has is violence to get them to comply.   I don't see how that ends well. Compromise has to happen somewhere. It may need to be forced. I would have given the fuckwit mcconnell jr. credit if he had accepted the olive branch that was offered, but he didn't. So I say offer it a 2nd time. If it Garland gets appointed it shows that at least one side is willing to not go full war political. If it isn't reciprocated later, then there is always time for a real revolution later.

 
I thought Garland was a compromise choice that Obama thought he could get confirmed by the senate