Hey SPEED This is your missguided worship of your ever loving gumment.

As is/was the case when you argued the "supposed" election mandate in 2018(in which you had to specify it as a first term mid-term election to try and make your point. ) you couch your words in order to make it sound "historical" when in reality it's nowhere near that.

Sure it's the first time in history of a 9 member SCOTUS. But historically the SCOTUS wasn't always 9 members and that timeframe doesn't even crack the top 5 longest periods taken in order to replace a SCOTUS member.

So play whatever cutsey gotcha games, but hardly "historic".

And again, there are from your own research several nominees whose nominations expired at the end of a Senate term.

But just so you have the actual historical perspective of the longest.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...e-more-common/

Based on that, that would be a historical high of inaction of around 12/13 months by the Senate. That would be longer than the 293 days, just FYI.

EDIT: I also want to clarify my statement in post 41 regarding the time to nomination. I misspoke and meant to say confirmed. Scalia's seat from his death to his replacement being confirmed was well less than the longest period in history by almost 2 1/2 times and Garland happened to be stuck in the middle. Originally Posted by eccielover

Let me address your link. I am not going to go back a century and a half to look into the circumstances of all the cases other than that of Abe Fortas. Let's look at Abe Fortas since it is the most recent. It is true that it took 391 days before Blackmun replaced Fortas on the Supreme Court. But Nixon nominated 2 others before he nominated Blackmun. I also looked at Robert Grier replacing Henry Baldwin and it was the same -- Grier was the 3rd person nominated by a president to fill Baldwin's spot.

The difference in the 2 cases I just cited and that of Garland is still obvious -- McConnell and the Republican controlled Senate did NOTHING to even address Garland's nomination. It was as if Garland had never been nominated. I challenge you to find such a similarity in any of the other cases of long delays.

Let me address your link. I am not going to go back a century and a half to look into the circumstances of all the cases other than that of Abe Fortas. Let's look at Abe Fortas since it is the most recent. It is true that it took 391 days before Blackmun replaced Fortas on the Supreme Court. But Nixon nominated 2 others before he nominated Blackmun. I also looked at Robert Grier replacing Henry Baldwin and it was the same -- Grier was the 3rd person nominated by a president to fill Baldwin's spot.

The difference in the 2 cases I just cited and that of Garland is still obvious -- McConnell and the Republican controlled Senate did NOTHING to even address Garland's nomination. It was as if Garland had never been nominated. I challenge you to find such a similarity in any of the other cases of long delays. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

So regardless of how many were nominated in the process you continue to ignore that from the Death of the Scotus judge in April 1844, the Senate did not act on a nomination until after May 1845. This is longer than the inaction on Garland.

Historical Senate inaction is historical Senate inaction and 12/13 months is more than 293 days.

So if you don't feel like proving otherwise because you don't think history of our nation is relevant, you are indeed becoming one of the hypocrites you keep complaining about.

Other than one misspeak on nomination vs. confirmation in one post that I have admitted to, I am accurate in my posting.

Your turn to show otherwise.

history keeps trumping you, speedy... bahahahahaha!!!!

So regardless of how many were nominated in the process you continue to ignore that from the Death of the Scotus judge in April 1844, the Senate did not act on a nomination until after May 1845. This is longer than the inaction on Garland.

Historical Senate inaction is historical Senate inaction and 12/13 months is more than 293 days.

So if you don't feel like proving otherwise because you don't think history of our nation is relevant, you are indeed becoming one of the hypocrites you keep complaining about.

Other than one misspeak on nomination vs. confirmation in one post that I have admitted to, I am accurate in my posting.

Your turn to show otherwise. Originally Posted by eccielover

Baldwin died in April of 1844. Edward King was nominated by Tyler in June of 1844. The Senate voted to postpone consideration of King's nomination. Tyler renominated King once again in December 1844 and in January 1845 the Senate once again tabled the nomination. Tyler withdrew King's nomination in Feb. 1845. Tyler then nominated John Read whose nomination was eventually withdrawn due to his stance on slavery. In August 1846 Robert Grier was nominated and quickly approved.

So the Senate did take action on King's nomination.

Unfortunately, I can't find any information on whether or not action was taken by the Senate on Read's nomination. If the Senate sat on their asses and did nothing on Read's nomination from Feb. 1845 until August 1846, you are correct in stating the delay by the Senate was longer in this case than the delay in Garland's case. If the Senate took action similar to what was taken in King's nomination, you are incorrect.

Again, to me whether or not 171 years ago a biased Senate which had it in for John Tyler simply ignored Tyler's Supreme Court nominations for a longer period than McConnell and the Republicans ignored the nomination of Garland does not make it right. The responsibility of the Senate is to vet Supreme Court nominees and then vote on the nominee. If in 2016 the Senate had done that and voted down Garland I would have no problem. Taking no action is indefensible, whether it in fact did happen in 1845/1846, or as it did happen in 2016.

Baldwin died in April of 1844. Edward King was nominated by Tyler in June of 1844. The Senate voted to postpone consideration of King's nomination. Tyler renominated King once again in December 1844 and in January 1845 the Senate once again tabled the nomination. Tyler withdrew King's nomination in Feb. 1845. Tyler then nominated John Read whose nomination was eventually withdrawn due to his stance on slavery. In August 1846 Robert Grier was nominated and quickly approved.

So the Senate did take action on King's nomination.

Unfortunately, I can't find any information on whether or not action was taken by the Senate on Read's nomination. If the Senate sat on their asses and did nothing on Read's nomination from Feb. 1845 until August 1846, you are correct in stating the delay by the Senate was longer in this case than the delay in Garland's case. If the Senate took action similar to what was taken in King's nomination, you are incorrect.

Again, to me whether or not 171 years ago a biased Senate which had it in for John Tyler simply ignored Tyler's Supreme Court nominations for a longer period than McConnell and the Republicans ignored the nomination of Garland does not make it right. The responsibility of the Senate is to vet Supreme Court nominees and then vote on the nominee. If in 2016 the Senate had done that and voted down Garland I would have no problem. Taking no action is indefensible, whether it in fact did happen in 1845/1846, or as it did happen in 2016. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

So, deciding not to take action on the nominee and let them sit is taking action? Is that your argument?

Then by the rules of the Senate, McConnell took Senate action in not bringing the nomination to the floor and advising Obama that any nomination he made would not be given consent.

See how that works there. And action that results in the Senate taking no action is somehow "graded" differently by you to try and make a point.

You say you would have been happy with them voting down Garland. Would you have been equally happy had they just voted to postpone addressing his nomination?

Given your logic, any delay in anything the Senate does or does not do is indefensible - right?

Can they sit on and kill legislation. OMG, they better act quickly.

The Senate is historically the slower more deliberate branch of Congress controlled by it's own set of rules.

You are just unhappy that Garland and Obama were victims of normal Senate politics.

The hypocrisy of the Kavanaugh attacks still in my opinion dwarf the not overly unusual treatment of Garland.

So, deciding not to take action on the nominee and let them sit is taking action? Is that your argument?

Then by the rules of the Senate, McConnell took Senate action in not bringing the nomination to the floor and advising Obama that any nomination he made would not be given consent.

See how that works there. And action that results in the Senate taking no action is somehow "graded" differently by you to try and make a point.

You say you would have been happy with them voting down Garland. Would you have been equally happy had they just voted to postpone addressing his nomination?

Given your logic, any delay in anything the Senate does or does not do is indefensible - right?

Can they sit on and kill legislation. OMG, they better act quickly.

The Senate is historically the slower more deliberate branch of Congress controlled by it's own set of rules.
hYou are just unhappy that Garland and Obama were victims of normal Senate politics.

The hypocrisy of the Kavanaugh attacks still in my opinion dwarf the not overly unusual treatment of Garland. Originally Posted by eccielover

Without knowing all the facts behind the lack of action taken 170 years ago, neither you nor I can justify or condemn it.

The fact remains that in 2016 the Republican led Senate did nothing for 293 days. NOTHING. That is wrong, independent of which party did it. In this case it happened to be Republicans. Jusified delays in action by Congress are defensible. The lack of action in 2016 was unjustified in my opinion. Your statement about McConnell taking action by not taking action is ridiculous.

If you think the hypocrisy shown by Feinstein and other Democrats in condemning Kavanaugh and giving Biden a free ride is more hypocritical than Republicans sitting on their asses and not doing their job in allowing the nomination of Garland to at least reach a vote, fine. We differ on our opinions.

You are one of the biggest passive aggressive braggadocios hypocriticals...that thought he knew anything...but didn't.
You just shoot your mouth off at anything