You don't seem to have your facts straight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Blackmun#Tenure_on_the_Supreme_Court

'Blackmun was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Richard M. Nixon on April 14, 1970, and was confirmed by the Senate on May 12, 1970, by a 94–0 vote.'

If I can trust wikipedia, Blackmun's nomination didn't take 391 days. 

'Obama then expressed support for then-Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) efforts to filibuster Alito.'

As far as Alito goes, he was confirmed.  

The Senate rejected Nixon's nominations for 341 days.  They shot down 2, outright...for the first time a Justice nomination had been refused sine 1929 (I believe).  So, for 341 days the USSC was short a Justice and the public reasons were strictly ideological.

And let us not forget Robert Bork who was vilified, his excellent legal reputation destroyed and all on purely ideological grounds. 

But thast was the work of DAMNocRAts.  And, now it is their ox which stands to ghet gored...and they are suddenly outraged...

'The Senate rejected Nixon's nominations for 341 days'

That isn't what you said the first time, unlike this current instance the Senate acted on the nominations.  

And let us not forget Robert Bork who was vilified, his excellent legal reputation destroyed and all on purely ideological grounds. 

The didn't ignore the nomination as the GOP is doing today, one may disagree with what the Democrats did, and I think it was a foolish move, but they acted unlike the current Senate who wants to get paid for doing no work.  You have made the Presidents case very well, the Senate should take up the nomination and bring it to a vote.

Oh, gee, Jerry.  Now, instead of discussing the point, which is that ideological opposition to judicial nominations has traditionally been a DAMNocRAT game, you wish to make the topic how I phrased it.

In debate that is known as a "Red Herring"... though, since it you doing it, we might rename it "A Red's Herring".

Fact is the DAMNocRATs have ALWAYS made nominations an ideological issue, at least since the 1960s.  And their personal god, FDR, tried <in vain> to increase the USSC to 11 members so that he could pack the Court.  But he lost that battle in Congress.

The real blasphemy is that people like that think they should be able to regulate how I speak, act, dress, or reproduce.

Casey (BLACKHAWK452) said:

DAMNocRATs

Why do you find it necessary to continually insult people you don't agree with?

I'm not looking to start a fight in Gunter's forum, I just find your continual name-calling rude.

As long as you use words like 'DAMNocRAT', it is hard to take your arguments seriously.

Well, so hit me with your mod hammer.  I offend you referring to the Party of Treason as DAMNocRATs?  Gee, I have been offended for half a century as they have destroyed American Culture, Faith, and Families... using the strategies introduced to America by what is know known as The Institute for Social Research.   This group was brought to America by FDR as "refugees".  That group was originally known as The Institute for Marxism at Frankfurt University and were acolytes of Roberto Gramsci's  writings on how to bring down the West.

So, yeah, I..a former Democrat.. was left standing in place by the march of the DAMNocRAt Party to the Left.  Me..?  I am still that John Kennedy democrat I was in 1960 and 1964.  And I am an enemy to DAMNocRATs.

And they continue the march begun in earnest in the 1960s by their cadre imported to America to destroy this Nation and re-make it in the mold of a some European workers' paradise. 

Naw.  They are DAMNocRATs.

Gee, Jerry.  You have always had a hard time taking any argument seriously.  That is because you are an ideologue and not an intellectual.  

I am hardly an ideologue.  I do prefer arguments that don't include name called and referring to the Democrats the way you do is name calling.  I doubt that you have done a study of all supreme court nominees to see how much obstruction there has been and who caused it. I know I haven't.   What makes it harder is that our parties have changed.  The billboards against Earl Warren were put up by Democrats in the South not by Republicans, but no Democrat today would endorse that kind of campaign.  I am no blind admirer of the Democrats. I've read Robert Caro's account of how Johnson's supporters stole the 1948 senate election in Texas.  What I am saying is that sins of the Democrats don't make the sins of the current GOP any less sinful.