I see we're going to have another day in which we recall The Tragicall Historye of Merrick Garland, the federal judge who didn't get to be a more powerful federal judge.

This particular recurring thread is a good cross-section of contemporary liberalism's tactical bankruptcy: they didn't fight hard enough when it was actually happening, it being the blocking of their pre-compromised nominee the Republicans were supposed to look bad for denying.

This was on the idea that it'd be a 'hypocrisy' silver bullet to use against the Republicans later. Despite all evidence, there's some lingering idea of effectively shaming McConnell or getting the ref to give them the ball on review with a lot of 'look! Unfair! Remember?'

It doesn't work. Jon Stewart is not a political theorist, and you can't win by pulling up an old clip that contradicts current behaviour. He keeps violating process! So fight him. Come up with something that motivates the non-voters. This doesn't.

This appeal to authority isn't politics if the authority, the electorate, is not moved by spinelessness and craven nerd shit. The mean Republicans unfairly blocked a qualified candidate from the job. This is pitched in terms of utterly unrelatable PMC grievance politics.

Because we're meant to view Garland as prelude to Hillary, and they are martyrs (or even vaguely sympathetic figures) only to a very narrow section of people. To everyone else, the first is a 'who was that?' and the second is a failed act who doesn't know when to leave the stage.