So in that case, John Mace describing it as less than effusive as regards to Garland is incorrect.
The OP may have a hard time finding cases where we can say with confidence that Garland ruled differently than Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have, but that’s because, so far as I know, he hadn’t ruled on too many politically controversial cases. Most cases that come before the courts don’t amount to a choice between an obviously liberal result and an obviously conservative one.
So, “moderate” in this context doesn’t necessarily mean “a proven conservative on some issues, and a proven liberal on others”, but rather, “Neither his rulings nor his public statements brand him as particularly conservative or particularly liberal.”
Not really. The praise Grassley offered apart from the “another court” comment is not what I’d call effusive
Said in the manner John did, he seemed to be saying it was a purposely tepid compliment when apparently Grassley intended to convey that Garland’s qualifications were of little importance.
Cabinet members, OK - they’re picked expressly with the expectation that they’ll carry out the policies of the President.
However, it sort of knocks the expectation of an independent judiciary on its ass if one sees high court judges as picked to “rubber stamp” the President’s wishes.
I’d like to see less deference to Presidential prerogative in such matters, not more.
What I got from Grassley’s comment is: “Garland’s qualifications are perfectly acceptable, and I’d be open to confirming him to another federal bench, but not to this circuit, because they don’t need the extra manpower.”
And what I got from John’s comment was: “That’s praise, but not over-the-top effusive praise.”
Grassley is probably unavailable, but John could clarify. 
I more or less think this as well, barring obviously unqualified Cabinet picks (which to tell the truth we’ve had several of this administration mixed in with the merely malicious.)
If Cabinet members were quite easily approved, and judges easily approved but always quickly got an up or down vote, then I might not be satisfied with the results but would not fault the process. ETA: I would not mind a supermajority to disapprove of a Cabinet pick as long as everyone had their up or down vote. That way everyone would be on record as supporting or not supporting a candidate if they went on to show their later incompetence.
A reasonable supposition, though I suppose one could also argue Sotomayor and Kagan were just the two most qualified people in the whole country to be USSC justices…But seriously folks, yes the fact that Garland wasn’t an earlier pick is a semi-objective argument he is more of a ‘moderate’ than the previous two.
Otherwise it’s spin from the media and other Obama allies playing up how ‘unreasonable’ it was for the GOP to refuse to give him hearings/vote. Which maybe it was, but ‘moderate’ is a bunch of fluff, basically. Obama was the farthest left president in recent history (his fans should embrace rather than rejecting that, IMO, I think some would). The people he nominated naturally tended to have a similar outlook. Calling them ‘moderates’ is the same category as saying there’s a ‘right wing’ but refusing to acknowledge there’s a ‘left wing’ or ‘the Democrats are right in the middle, the GOP is way off to the right’, etc. It’s just spin. It’s all relative.