That’s how the tit for tat game works - every tit (or tat) is considered the biggest tit (or tat) ever by the other side. The Garland situation certainly was a big tit (and I wasn’t in favor of it and would have preferred an up or down vote, as always), but that doesn’t mean the previous tits (or tats) weren’t tits or that each of those weren’t considered quite big tooTit all the tats you want, but the Garland obstruction was a nuclear blast that outshone all previous Senatorial obstruction of judicial candidates combined. The Senate GOP wanted to prevent Obama from filling the seat, not only in the hopes that a Republican president would fill it instead, but also that the open seat would help increase conservative turnout in November. But they didn't want to have to go on the record and reject a supremely qualified individual. So they did the most cowardly, despicable alternative they could find: they simply refused to do the jobs the voters had elected them to do. In a hundred years, when someone writes The Decline and Fall of the United States Senate, the Garland nomination will get its own chapter.
When objective analysts discuss the deterioration of civility in the judicial nomination process they never blame one side for it. When conservatives / Republicans discuss it here they don’t blame Democrats alone for it. When liberals / Democrats here discuss it, they generally blame Republicans alone. Seems they can only see the last tit (or tat) and, by God, that tit is the biggest tit in the history of tits and no other tits deserve mention ever again. Or tat(s) . . .
Last edited: