Still not having this fight. Eyes on the prize.

Sometimes I cannot believe that it was only a few short months ago that I did not even believe Bernie or bust people existed in the wild. But I have become educated in the meantime. Okay, yes, they exist. And yes, they are not all paid trolls or any other kind of trolls. Short-sighted rebels making perfect the enemy of the good, immature children throwing a purity tantrum, and instant gratification-seeking dilettantes with no memory of the bush crime syndicate perhaps, with their heels securely dug into the ground far, far from where the rest of the Democratic party is but sincere in their principles. Unfortunately their principles may include letting Donald Trump or Ted Cruz become president, just to teach the rest of us corporate sell-outs a good lesson. 

Oh to be young and irresponsible again! I have already written about the time I was young and irresponsible during the 2000 election, and that I will never do that again. Anyone older than I am and this passionately committed to teaching Democrats a lesson by monkey-wrenching the first succession of Democratic administrations in my lifetime is deeply irresponsible and unable to put their ideology behind the public interest. After all, that is what it is, a rigidly held belief system that assumes you know best. That just like in 2000, it is time to shoot the moon and leave behind the "good enough" for the "revolution".

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Bernie or bust movement, what makes you think this country even deserves your version of "revolution?" You may be riding high in this primary season, and you may retain that pompous prestige as useful idiots for the right for a bit but if the republicans ever got power or even had to face your revolution in a general election it would be wholesale slaughter. 

This is all on my mind because somehow a Bernie or buster found the meme below that I shared to my Facebook page at the beginning of March, right around the time I wrote the "Getting the House in Order" post in the first link above. She left this lengthy comment on something that has been buried for almost two months on the Facebook page for a blog that has a relatively small audience (not that I don't keep plugging away), that is unlikely to be read by anyone but me. I can't imagine how much effort it took to find this post for one, for another why would someone spend time writing this much about Merrick Garland in a place that will have no impact?

Don't lose sight of the goal. The next President will appoint as many as FOUR Supreme Court Justices. Think of what will happen to civil rights if Donald Trump or Ted Cruz is responsible for those nominations.

Remember to LIKE Winning Democrats and VOTE BLUE in November!

Now, I admit that this meme is just an appeal for party unity and the public interest with no sources of evidence. And yes, it is meant to head off the kind of division that Ms. Owen is presenting and that is exactly why I shared it. If I had made a meme like this (which after several postings ranting against memes I would probably never do) it would include something for further reading to try and back up the claims. I assume the Winning Democrats page or site has something like that. But this meme also displays my priorities, I am willing to compromise, accept the good enough over the perfect, and work for incremental change in order to keep from going backwards.

So let's take a look at her comment. I have not looked hard before starting this post but I suspect that this is a series of USUNCUT or MOVEON talking points, which is fine but would explain why she bothered to put on my page; no effort needed, just cut and paste. 

People say that the Supreme court is a reason to vote for Hillary instead of Bernie or any independents, and here's why that's wrong. Merrick Garland is Obamas choice for the supreme court, Hillary Clinton has already said that she will NOT ask Obama to withdraw his pick, which means that she would support Garland. Sure, Obama picked Garland, he's gotta be a good choice, WRONG, Garland has cited Citizens United in multiple decisions, and he generally sides on the sides of corporations in his decisions, you can almost guarantee that if an opportunity to overturn Citizens United that Garland will vote pro-Citizens United, instead of against it (the reason Dems say Clinton is the better choice), so there really is no reason to support Hillary over Bernie. Would a republican pick someone more conservative? Probably, but Merrick Garland sure as hell is NO defender of liberal values, in fact he is very pro-business, anti-union, and has some unclear views on socially liberal opinions, so he is a terrible choice for Supreme Court justice and ONLY Bernie has said he will ask Obama to withdraw his choice.
#BernieorBust

Given that Driftglass encountered and knocked down an insufferably long attempt by a political dilettante to paint all liberals as smug, I will try and emulate him. Because there are several similarities in this argument. 

First, who is Merrick Garland? He is a 63 year old Judge with a great deal of experience on the bench, is a Democrat, and is eminently qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. He is significantly to the left of the man he was chosen to succeed. Meaning he is a good choice and acceptable to possibly the vast majority of Americans outside of the tea party or Berniebro fringes.

Second, he was nominated after the republicans under Mitch McConnell had already defiantly proclaimed that they would never consider even holding hearings on anyone Barack Obama nominated. Therefore, simply stating that he is "a terrible choice" because he doesn't pass your litmus test (without providing any evidence, yes, if you make the claim it is up to you to provide evidence to support it) without considering the larger picture is irresponsible.

Third, there are numerous logical fallacies in this argument. "People say" is a weasel phrase, which is then used to construct a straw-man argument of "the Supreme Court is a reason to vote for Hillary instead of Bernie". Then a series of unsubstantiated assertions attempt to demolish the straw-man. All the while attempting to manufacture false equivalence between a SCOTUS nominee of Hillary Clinton and a Republican nominee. There is more than simply Bernie's pick and all others being bad. The false dilemma of Garland as being the only choice by cutting off the possibility of the pick being political maneuvering by Obama and solidarity with the leader of the Democratic Party by Hillary Clinton. Finally the No True Scotsman that only a pick by Bernie could meet your approval and would be acceptable for SCOTUS.

This is why I replied only that your argument was unpersuasive.