@oralloy,
Oralloy:
Your own reference just said that she did get a hearing in committee. From your own source:
Quote:President Bush's nomination of Harvard Law School professor Mary Ann Glendon as U.S. ambassador to the Vatican is being held up in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, raising the possibility that the post may be vacant when Pope Benedict XVI visits the United States in April.
Which means that the normal committee which handles these things is dealing with it, has talked it over or is talking it over. In short, they are advising and may or may not consent, as the Constitution directs.
With Merrick Garland, there was no discussions, advisement or anything else. The committee didn't even raise the issue of Garland's nomination. The head of the Senate Republicans, Mitch McConnell, said the nomination is not even going to be dealt with, introduced in committee, or talked over or considered in any way. And that was that.
And yes, it matters, because the Constitution says the Senate is to advise and consent, which is what they did with all of Bush's nominees who did not withdraw themselves. The Constiitution does not say the nominee has to pass, it says the nominee must be considered. You are trying to gl0ss over the difference, and it is obvious.
That's never been done before, all nominees previously at least got dealt with by committee. Also, as befits the importance of the appointment, all presidential nominees, if they haven't been withdrawn, get a vote on the floor of the Senate.
So no, what happened to Merrick Garland has never happened before, the Republicans are tearing apart the functioning of the government to suit their narrowly focused political aims.