Merrick Garland

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your memory is flawed. Never before in US history has the Senate ever refused to even consider a President's SCOTUS nominee even before he was named.

Puleeze!

Originally posted by normbenign
Puleeze!

That is an accurate statement and no amount of holding your breath until you turn blue affects the truthfulness of it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That is an accurate statement and no amount of holding your breath until you turn blue affects the truthfulness of it.

The last two time G. W. Bush named justices, they were condemned as soon as they were mentioned. Several before they were formally nominated.

That wasn't the case in decades past. But I can see no reason why Republicans should be bound to the old standard when Democrats ignore it every time.

Originally posted by normbenign
The last two time G. W. Bush named justices, they were condemned as soon as they were mentioned. Several before they were formally nominated.

That wasn't the case in decades past. But I can see no reason why Republicans should be bound to the old standard when Democrats ignore it every time.

Nice backtracking.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Nice backtracking.

I don't see it as backtracking. I would hope Republicans will vet any choice by Obama just as vigorously as Democrats vetted Bush's choices.

The days of the President just getting his way are over.

Originally posted by normbenign
I don't see it as backtracking. I would hope Republicans will vet any choice by Obama just as vigorously as Democrats vetted Bush's choices.

The days of the President just getting his way are over.

They are refusing to "vet" the nominee at all which is what you seem to be missing.