Not quite the same, is it? Not in the U.S. it isn't. If it were, our democracy would be in peril. But when 30 court challenges find that the election was legitimate (as in the case of 2020) it is certainly illegal to make up stuff to challenge it, put up slates of fake electors, pressure the Vice President to throw out results, and stir up violent mobs to circumvent it.
No. One might wonder just where Mr. Garland could do the most damage. I would say, corrupting the Justice Dept. in persuit of defending Our President is worse than anything he might have acomplished on The Court. Welcome to Mr. Garland's revenge.
Let's remember that "Garland had more federal judicial experience than any other Supreme Court nominee in history", and was given the highest rating possible by the ABA. He was not appointed to the Supreme Court due to Republican Mitch McConnell's unprecedented refusal to consider him. McConnell didn't want Obama to appoint anyone to the Supreme Court. Obviously a political move to prevent a Democratic president from appointing anyone to the court as the Republicans have made it their policy to, and have stacked the court in their favor. The Republicans don't want an impartial Supreme Court, they want a court that caters to their interests, as we have seen. As Attorney General he has prosecuted those who tried to overthrow the government of the united States by storming the Capitol building and attempting to hang the vice president, promised equal justice under the law, promoted civil rights, strived for the Justice Department to be independent, placed a moratorium on the federal death penalty, protected voting rights, issued a memorandum to protect school boards, and has appointed special prosecutors to look into Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and Hunter Biden. That's just some of what he has done. If you consider stuff like protecting voting rights, investigating Joe Biden, and prosecuting traitors "revenge", then you would be right.