[anigbrowl]

I did - here's a decent summary: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12...

I agree that the Democrats made their bed on that one, but they were at least holding hearings for most of Bush's senior nominees rather than trying to obstruct all his appointments. The refusal to even hear a supreme Court nominee this year shocked me. It would be understandable if Scalia had died close to the election but his seat has been empty for nearly a year now.

[bmelton]

Not that I intend the conversation to devolved into "but the Democrats did..." and vice versa, but the only thing unique for Garland is the delay at that exact position.

Priscilla Owen was denied a vote for an entire presidential term[1].

[1] - http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261878/democrats-blocked-b...

[akiselev]

No, Garland's situation is unique because no one has pulled this nonsense with the Supreme Court, regardless of how close to the election it was. Tit for tat politicking is usually reserved for the lower courts and Democrats were far more accomodating to Bush's nominations for the Supreme Court.

Priscilla Owen was retribution because the Republican senate refused to fill Garwood's seat during Clinton's second term (obstruction that lasted just as long as Owens, 97-01) and she was viewed as too conservative (contrary to what the the Frontpage Mag article says). They're not even in the same ballpark.