(post shortened)
Of course it is. 
What are you talking about man? Garland was already vetted and approved by those rebuplican dolts. It happened, in the past, already, previously, before, as prologue to, and priorly…
As running coach already covered in Post #404, Garland’s record is already public. The Senate has everything they need to call a hearing and ask questions to fill in gaps in that record. Not to mention that Garland is already speaking with any senators willing to meet with him. They’re presumably asking him whatever questions they deem relevant. He is diligently doing his half of the work while most of the GOP shoves their fingers in their ears and hums.
But please feel free to continue making contradictory, uninformed assumptions. I have an idea for your next one: Garland doesn’t really want the job because he hasn’t kidnapped McConnell’s family in an attempt to force him to schedule a hearing. I think you could get a good half page out of that hijack.
In fairness, Garland was vetted and approved when he was appointed in 1996 to the DC Circuit Court. There were Republicans involved since they held the Senate majority, but not all the same Republicans as we see now.
Well that changes everything. What would we do without fairness?
We’d vote for Trump.
I think you have to zume in the first place before you can rezume.
If Garland wants the support of the Senator’s constituents, he’s going to have to make his case to the Senator’s constituents. Or not.
(post shortened)
Ahem, I understand that there are constituents of U.S. Senator who do not believe Garland is qualified to be a Supreme. :eek: I assume that many of those constituents are mailing, emailing, and calling their Senators to voice their opinions that no hearing should be held to discuss the unqualified Garland’s nomination.
That, plus the majority of the U.S. Senate, and the leadership of the U.S. Senate, having their own reasons for not holding hearings.
Garland’s supporters can chose to ignore the opinions, and possible support, of the voters. Their choice.
(post shortened)
They told you this? 
I’ll take your word for it! :eek:
That would be unprecedented, wouldn’t it? The nomination of SCOTUS justice always draws letters from constituents opposed, I have no doubt, but at all times previously those letters would have been based on the assumption that hearings were coming.
Formatting mine. I found your problem. Also not terribly sure what this has to do with your baffling point that it’s Garland’s fault for not attempting to meet with Senate Republicans even though he actually is.
Unprecedented? Constituents contact their elected representatives all the time. At least they’re supposed to.
You have two U.S. Senators. They are YOUR U.S. Senators. You are free to discuss anything with them that you feel is important to you.
(Post shortened, emphasis added)
Is that a rule?:eek:I’ve never heard of someone being arrested for failing to contact their elected representatives! 
No, it’s not a rule. Or a law. It’s your choice.
supposed to=your choice? 
Demanding that hearings not be held for a SCOTUS nominee would be unprecedented. (If in fact any of the letter-writers are demanding that.) Before this year, letters hostile to a nominee would simply have asked the senator to vote against confirmation.
Why would any Republican people bother talking to their representatives about Garland’s suitability? What would the point be? His good and bad points are completely moot.
The Republican leadership have made it very clear that it DOES. NOT. MATTER. who Obama nominates. ANYone will be unsuitable, as long as the current president nominates them. Period. This has been made VERY clear.
There is one and only one reason for Garland not getting a hearing; The Republicans in the Senate.
Besides, most Americans want an up or down vote so doorhinge is just making assumptions based on his own personal preference rather than what constituents actually want.
Among Americans who follow news about the next appointment closely, about 2/3 want an up or down vote.
If that ends up being the case, I hope Hillary makes them pay by nominating a staunch liberal to the court (assuming, of course, that the Dems win the Senate in the fall). Who knows, it might be an improvement anyway.