>>>but AT THE TIME they are appointed, [their lean] *should* reflect the majority of the people.
>
>That's a rule you made up that doesn't make a lot of sense, since you might as well do away with SCOTUS were that the case.
>
>The actual rule is that POTUS is supposed to pick a legalist for Senate to vet and confirm as such. By legalist I mean one who strictly follows the letter of law and constitution so that their long tenure in the face of changing society, is not an issue of a packed SCOTUS. They're there to kerb excesses and protect democracy, not to lock in partisan advantage based purely on when their predecessor exits.

If there were no laws that were somewhat ambitious then that would play out in real life -- but that is not the case.

>As for Garland: to my superficial gaze he looked like a legalist, so a good pick by Obama. But that didn't matter when politicians wanted revenge for similar tactics used earlier by democrats... who now up the ante in other areas. Back and forth goes the escalation of violence as a re-enactment of Dr Seuss' "The Butter Battle Book" with the intended purpose of SCOTUS and wellbeing of society reduced to slogans to support the next offensive campaign.

I won't speculate why the republicans did it -- but you're for sure right about the fact that the democrats have done similar things in the past....but using a little bit of math you can see that the court *should* be leaning the other direction *if* you look at everything as a whole over the past 20 or so years and account for popular vote, etc.