Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
From the Never Trump Review
RaceBannon
Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 104,492 
in Tug Tavern
https://nationalreview.com/2020/09/the-myth-of-merrick-garlands-poor-treatment/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nationalreviewDR+%28National+Review+-+DeploReport%29
Exactly what constituted the supposedly heinous treatment of Merrick Garland, who continues to sit on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals? The answer is that he was not afforded the opportunity to serve as an associate justice on the Supreme Court. Garland was doubtlessly disappointed that he came as close as he did to achieving such an honor, only to be denied a hearing. But Senate Republicans were under no obligation to give him one, much less to confirm him. Moreover, Republicans avoided personal attacks on Garland, instead arguing that, because the president and Senate had opposite views on the matter, voters should be given a voice in the kind of justice who would succeed Scalia. Ultimately, Garland was not a satisfactory pick to a majority of senators, so he was not elevated. Compared to how Republican judicial nominees have been treated for the past several decades, Garland’s treatment was positively heartwarming.
Judge Robert Bork, a renowned legal mind who had served as solicitor general and acting attorney general and on the D.C. Circuit, was rejected by the Senate as a nominee to the Supreme Court in 1987. Ted Kennedy made it his mission to declare that “Robert Bork’s America” would be a place “where blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids,” and “writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government.” Joe Biden said that “it appears to me that you are saying that the government has as much right to control a married couple’s decision about choosing to have a child or not, as that government has a right to control the public utility’s right to pollute the air.” The Democrats made no bones about it: Robert Bork was a fascist.
Miguel Estrada had clerked for Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court and worked in a variety of different federal legal capacities when he was nominated to the D.C. Circuit in 2001. Democrats claimed to oppose Estrada’s nomination because of the lack of documentation provided to them from his time in the solicitor general’s office, but a letter from a bipartisan group of former solicitors general shot down this objection. Really, the Democrats opposed his nomination in large part because “he is Latino” and was therefore “especially dangerous” as a Republican prospect for the Supreme Court. Estrada’s was the first appeals-court nomination in American history to be successfully filibustered. After more than two years of battles, Estrada finally withdrew so that he could “regain the ability to make long-term plans for my family” despite having secured support for a cloture vote from 55 senators.
Of course, the freshest and most visceral instance of Democratic indecency in handling Republican judicial nominees is Brett Kavanaugh. After Trump nominated Kavanaugh to the court, Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, was forwarded a letter from Christine Blasey Ford alleging that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her while the two of them were in high school. Feinstein declined to raise these allegations during Kavanaugh’s private meetings with Feinstein and his regularly scheduled hearings with the Judiciary Committee. Instead, either she or a member of her staff — against the express wishes of Blasey Ford — leaked the existence of the letter to the press. Not a single person contemporaneously corroborated Ford’s accusations, and she was unable to produce any piece of evidence that Kavanaugh was guilty.
Exactly what constituted the supposedly heinous treatment of Merrick Garland, who continues to sit on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals? The answer is that he was not afforded the opportunity to serve as an associate justice on the Supreme Court. Garland was doubtlessly disappointed that he came as close as he did to achieving such an honor, only to be denied a hearing. But Senate Republicans were under no obligation to give him one, much less to confirm him. Moreover, Republicans avoided personal attacks on Garland, instead arguing that, because the president and Senate had opposite views on the matter, voters should be given a voice in the kind of justice who would succeed Scalia. Ultimately, Garland was not a satisfactory pick to a majority of senators, so he was not elevated. Compared to how Republican judicial nominees have been treated for the past several decades, Garland’s treatment was positively heartwarming.
Judge Robert Bork, a renowned legal mind who had served as solicitor general and acting attorney general and on the D.C. Circuit, was rejected by the Senate as a nominee to the Supreme Court in 1987. Ted Kennedy made it his mission to declare that “Robert Bork’s America” would be a place “where blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids,” and “writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government.” Joe Biden said that “it appears to me that you are saying that the government has as much right to control a married couple’s decision about choosing to have a child or not, as that government has a right to control the public utility’s right to pollute the air.” The Democrats made no bones about it: Robert Bork was a fascist.
Miguel Estrada had clerked for Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court and worked in a variety of different federal legal capacities when he was nominated to the D.C. Circuit in 2001. Democrats claimed to oppose Estrada’s nomination because of the lack of documentation provided to them from his time in the solicitor general’s office, but a letter from a bipartisan group of former solicitors general shot down this objection. Really, the Democrats opposed his nomination in large part because “he is Latino” and was therefore “especially dangerous” as a Republican prospect for the Supreme Court. Estrada’s was the first appeals-court nomination in American history to be successfully filibustered. After more than two years of battles, Estrada finally withdrew so that he could “regain the ability to make long-term plans for my family” despite having secured support for a cloture vote from 55 senators.
Of course, the freshest and most visceral instance of Democratic indecency in handling Republican judicial nominees is Brett Kavanaugh. After Trump nominated Kavanaugh to the court, Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, was forwarded a letter from Christine Blasey Ford alleging that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her while the two of them were in high school. Feinstein declined to raise these allegations during Kavanaugh’s private meetings with Feinstein and his regularly scheduled hearings with the Judiciary Committee. Instead, either she or a member of her staff — against the express wishes of Blasey Ford — leaked the existence of the letter to the press. Not a single person contemporaneously corroborated Ford’s accusations, and she was unable to produce any piece of evidence that Kavanaugh was guilty.