Quote Originally Posted by Lowell View Post
Checking Wikipedia there have been 12 SC rejections in history most famously in recent history being Bork.
Does this also mean that Bork was nominated, and the Senate - like now - refused to even consider him? NO-SIRREE!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bork GOT his consideration and hearings in the Senate, and they VOTED on his confirmation. The vote just happened not to be in Bork's favor.

The Repugs don't even have the cojones to have the hearings, and follow their own foregone conclusions and vote not to confirm. Why not?

I looked at Article Two of the U. S. Constitution recently, and it says that the President "SHALL" nominate. That last I knew in legalese, SHALL is a command, a requirement, an order. Even if there is some wiggle room, as there is nothing that requires nine Justices at a time [[just NO MORE THAN nine), it is certainly going against custom and logic to keep a vacancy there for more than a year.

Sen. Orrin Hatch [[R. - Utah) recently said that Obama was likely to nominae some flaming liberal [[or something), but if Obama was going to do the right thing he should name Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy. Yes, Hatch actually SUGGESTED this nomination. Now that Obama has done exactly what Hatch said should be done, he steadfastly refuses to consider any kind of nhearing at all.

I actually retained some respect for Hatch for all these years. Now, that is gone forever - and perhaps there is no Republican left that I respect at all. Hypocrite.