Don't think me cynical when I reveal this, but the fact is that Republicans are simply not comfortable lying and slandering someone for purely political reasons. If Garland had been given public hearings and been subject to public debate, about the only thing the R's could have said was that, "He's obviously a fine candidate, but we're not going to vote for him because (a) he is a political Liberal being presented to replace a staunch conservative, (b) his placement on the court would fuck up the balance, possibly for many years to come, and (c) it is appropriate to leave this momentous decision to the American People, who will vote for a new President and a new Senate in November (2016).
And to many Americans, these three reasons - even in total - would have amounted to not much of a reason not to confirm him. The Republicans didn't want to risk seeming petty.
But clearly Democrats have no such compunctions, with Terrible Ted Kennedy providing the most egregious example when he savaged Judge Robert Bork so many years ago. They lied, misrepresented, and slandered Gorsuch for the past few weeks, having no difficulty doing so, in spite of mountains of evidence and armies of lawyers and judges on both sides of the political spectrum endorsing the guy. How many Democrats even admitted that he was qualified, and that he wasn't a child molester? One or two?
So the answer to the (faux) outraged question, Why didn't Garland even get a hearing or a vote?: Because the Republicans are too truthful and too nice to want to have to slander him to justify not voting for him. And Democrats never have such problems because seeking the "right" result always trumps the obligation to be truthful.
And to many Americans, these three reasons - even in total - would have amounted to not much of a reason not to confirm him. The Republicans didn't want to risk seeming petty.
But clearly Democrats have no such compunctions, with Terrible Ted Kennedy providing the most egregious example when he savaged Judge Robert Bork so many years ago. They lied, misrepresented, and slandered Gorsuch for the past few weeks, having no difficulty doing so, in spite of mountains of evidence and armies of lawyers and judges on both sides of the political spectrum endorsing the guy. How many Democrats even admitted that he was qualified, and that he wasn't a child molester? One or two?
So the answer to the (faux) outraged question, Why didn't Garland even get a hearing or a vote?: Because the Republicans are too truthful and too nice to want to have to slander him to justify not voting for him. And Democrats never have such problems because seeking the "right" result always trumps the obligation to be truthful.
