![image.png](https://files.steempeak.com/file/steempeak/pomeline/IVGlFR3r-image.png)

Not my preferred choice among those realistically available. On the DC Circuit, he was known for what I (and many other libertarians and civil libertarians) see as excessive deference to law enforcement. Indeed, he and Kavanaugh had strikingly similar voting records on such issues when they were on the DC circuit together (which is not to say that either was somehow radical or out of the mainstream - they are just both on the deferential end of the mainstream spectrum).

That said, he is still likely to be better on civil liberties issues than Sessions and Barr were, and even more likely to be much better on immigration issues. In addition, Garland is universally respected, in the legal community, as a man of integrity.  And that does count for something, especially in this day and age. 

I should perhaps note that the above reservations are based on his judicial decisions, and some of Garland's defenders say his policy views are both separate and better. We shall see, and it could be true in some cases. But in general, there's a correlation between the two. Also, even if he merely thinks that constitutional constraints on law enforcement are generally weak, that's problematic in itself (though, in fairness, not that unusual a view for an AG).

Finally, it is now clear that Biden was waiting primarily to make sure he would be able to get a replacement for Garland's seat on the DC Circuit confirmed. In the new 50-50 Senate, that is nearly certain (barring some sort of scandal on the part of the nominee). Garland's own confirmation as AG would not have been an issue even in a 52-48 GOP Senate, I think.