I see we& #39;re going to have another day in which we recall The Tragicall Historye of Merrick Garland, the federal judge who didn& #39;t get to be a more powerful federal judge.

This particular recurring thread is a good cross-section of contemporary liberalism& #39;s tactical bankruptcy: they didn& #39;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& #39;d be a & #39;hypocrisy& #39; silver bullet to use against the Republicans later. Despite all evidence, there& #39;s some lingering idea of effectively shaming McConnell or getting the ref to give them the ball on review with a lot of & #39;look! Unfair! Remember?& #39;

It doesn& #39;t work. Jon Stewart is not a political theorist, and you can& #39;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& #39;t.

This appeal to authority isn& #39;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& #39;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 & #39;who was that?& #39; and the second is a failed act who doesn& #39;t know when to leave the stage.