Thanks to Wayne’s wayback research it is clear that my recollection that it was only over time that the bulk of Conservative Americans here adopted the “have a vote” position was incorrect.  Other than one poster of whom I specifically recall, I don’t know who all I debated about withholding a vote for Supreme Court Nominee that first day, but the evidence shows that most Conservative Americans who voiced opinions quickly rather than after the point was moot advocated the “have a vote” position.

 I apologize for the mischaracterization.

I do not know the breakdown of who saw that tactic as simply a more practical way of denying the nomination by voting no, but recognize that at least some and probably many Lounge Conservative Americans also had a more “original intent” understanding of advice and consent. 

Which brings me to the comment.  This outcome was unusual and it is useful to consider why.

As I pointed out below, fully 2/3 of Republicans nationally did agree with failing to hold a vote.  Why did Lounge Conservative Americans so dramatically go against that trend?  Think about how remarkable that is.  Are people who just happen to be here truly that special?  Why the difference?  I suspect it is because of the libertarian/constitutionalist bent of the board.  Not that people in general who started posting here just happened to be more oriented that way, but because a small number of strong posters who were, influenced the rest over time.  Slowly, over a period of years, whether you were Conservative American or liberal, Christian or heathen, the one thing you were more likely to drift towards was libertarian with a dash of constitutionalism.  Okay, that’s two.  But you get my point.