Let me see if I can understand what attorney Christopher J. Wright is saying about Merrick Garland ("A worthy Supreme Court nominee," March 21). The very last sentence of the first paragraph is telling. In it, the author states: "In any event, any reasonable person would conclude that objections to Chief Judge Garland's appointment are entirely partisan." As I include myself as one of those reasonable persons to whom the author refers, I understand that he quite obviously decries "partisan" objections to these appointments. Since the author is a learned man, I would ask him this question: "Why is it that partisan objections are more repugnant than partisan nominations?"