Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Honestly, Garland should have been nominated for SCOTUS early this year. [View all]Celerity
(43,708 posts)33. There was and is no vacancy, and Garland is too old, he would now be the oldest nominee who was
approved and then seated in the history of the SCOTUS. The next person we put on the court (if we even get a chance again, barring expansion, which is dead in the water atm) needs to be able to serve for decades. He also was a compromise (one that failed due to McTurtle) nominee at the time, and is too moderate.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
38 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Honestly, Garland should have been nominated for SCOTUS early this year. [View all]
themaguffin
Oct 2021
OP
Yes, I know. I skipped over that part in my post, to focus on the broader point.
themaguffin
Oct 2021
#30
A large segment of the country feels screwed by Mitch and would support the appointment.
themaguffin
Oct 2021
#14
It is a radical idea today...not so much in years gone by. But it doesn't matter as we don't
Demsrule86
Oct 2021
#4
he would now be the oldest nominee who was approved and then seated in the history of the SCOTUS
Celerity
Oct 2021
#34
There was and is no vacancy, and Garland is too old, he would now be the oldest nominee who was
Celerity
Oct 2021
#33