The writer justifies Democrat threats to try packing the Supreme Court if they gain power based on Merrick Garland not getting a hearing. As a matter of strategy, I agree he should have gotten a hearing. A long, leisurely hearing that ran out the clock on the possibility of another nominee, and then he should have been rejected based on his hostility to the 2nd Amendment.
In particular, as an appellate judge, he voted to allow the FBI to retain background check records, explicitly forbidden by the clear language if the Brady Law, as that would create a backdoor registry.
That alone is more than justification for rejecting him. Judges don’t get to ignore the clear language of the law just because they don’t like it.
I appointing an anti-gun zealot to replace, of all people, Scalia, Obama dared the GOP to reject him. That was a bridge too far.
He should have had his hearing, but he was never going to be confirmed.