That does seem to be becoming more common around here. I just wish it wasn’t in Great Debates/Elections.
Sure.
Hey, by the way, did you know that under directions from Hillary, Vince Foster’s body was moved to the park so the investigation wouldn’t be under the jurisdiction of Washington, D.C., police, but instead in the hands of the U.S. Park authorities?
Yup: I have a RTFirefly-level-cite:
A cite is a cite, amiright amiright?
Or maybe RTFirefly will fluidly revise his standard in this instance. That would be my bet.
And no cite is no cite. Why should I provide any cite at all, when you won’t provide any to support your claims? Your standards apparently shift radically to suit the needs of the moment.
I gave you a cite, above.
Hey, in other news, did you know that Democrats bear all the blame for the recent filibuster events. In fact, many Democratic senators have announced that the Constitution itself is a dangerous document, and they are committed to weakening it and ultimately destroying it. “We began our work in 1987 by refusing to confirm Robert Bork,” they announced in unison, “and we have continued our work to the present day.”
(post shortened, underline added)
The President doesn’t “fill” vacancies in the federal courts simply by declaring it a done deal. The President “nominates” judges, which are then approved by the U.S. Senate.
There has never been an agreement that U.S. Senators abandon their responsibility to confirm federal judges.
Slow-walking can be a part of the process.
Filibustering had long been a part of the process until that mean, little shit Hairy Reid, as well as other Democrats, declared it dead/nuked for all lesser federal judges. Which leaves the question - why did Reid and Co. believe that the filibuster was still a useful tool for the selection of Supreme Court Justices? Did Reid believe that the filibuster was a useful tool for important federal judgeships, but your average federal judgeship simply didn’t qualify?
And the stonewalling that the Democrats did for Bush’s nominees?
Were you not alive during that period? Did you die? Is it your lich now typing away, an undead creature in a grotesque parody of life? Must we summon a high-level cleric who can cast a Banish Lich spell?
Which of Bush’s nominees did the Democrats refuse to even hold a hearing? :dubious:
Sarcasm is the sour cream of wit, chum. Best in small doses. 
The comment was about stonewalling. And that would include Miguel Estrada.
Estrada had no judicial experience on local, state OR federal level. He had no academic writings for the Senate to review. He said he “never thought about Roe vs. Wade” even when he was a SCOTUS clerk when Papa Bush’s administration had asked the Court to reconsider it. Pardon me, but that’s decidedly shady.
If “stonewalling” means “rejecting a nominee because of egregious gaps in experience and questionable memory” then buy me the t-shirt, baby.
I think stonewalling can be many things, but refusing to hold a vote is assuredly included. Let me know your t-shirt size, and I’ll fail to send you one 
Charles Pickering and Carolyn Kuhl were also stonewalled. The point is that the gentlemen’s agreement that RTFirefly refers to was set aside long before. The Republicans were dealt a better hand, or simply played the game better, or both.
I don’t agree that holding a hearing is any particular evidence against stonewalling. Dubious.
emphasis added
I disagree. I knew who he was off the top of my head from the Oklahoma City bombing trial.