How much Repub. obstructionism expected for Sup. Crt. nominee?

[SteveRogers]

No one said anything when the DEMOCRATS did it to BUSH

It was wrong of Democrats to stonewall Bush's judicial appointments, and it was just as wrong for Republicans to do it to Obama. This is a disgusting tactic that both parties are guilty of.

But let's be clear: there is no equivalency here. Democrats never out-and-out refused to hold hearings on a nominee for the Supreme Court. That has never happened. It has always been understood that Supreme Court nominees are not filibustered. What Republicans are proposing to do would unprecedented, next-level nonsense.

[SteveRogers]

How is not voting for the President's choice obstructionism?

8-28-1969: Nixon nominates Clement Haynsworth for vacant Supreme Court; Dem. Senate rejects.
1-19-1970: Nixon nominates Harrold Carswell for same vacant Supreme Court; Dem. Senate rejects.
4-14-1970: Nixon surrenders and nominates liberal Harry Blackmun


7-1-1987: Reagan nominates Robert Bork for Supreme Court; Dem. Senate rejects.
10-31-1987: Reagan nominates Doug Ginsburg; Dem Senate yells about marijuana; Ginsburg quits
11-11-1987:  Reagan nominates squishy Kennedy. Senate approves.

If Obama cares about the Court he will nominate Souter or O'Connor as a placeholder.

Those nominees all received, or would have received, full confirmation hearings and an up-or-down vote. What Senate Republicans are threatening to do here is flat out refuse to hold hearings. They will essentially put their fingers in their ears for 10 months and pretend that they didn't hear the President nominate anyone. There is no precedent for that.

[SteveRogers]

Very helpful graphic:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/15/us/supreme-court-nominations-election-year-scalia.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur