I have heard that, and would love to find it in any credible record. Can you offer a link?
Kinda like having Obama in the well of the Senate, bitching about the debt limit increase.
Even if they did, and as pointed out Bork doesn't really count since another person was nominated after, I guess part of my argument is that it's not in the spirit of the constitution for either side to say, "no nominations".
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the language is actually pretty simple: The President has the right to nominate. Congress has a right to deny. That's pretty much it. So as per the constitution, let the President nominate, and then either accept or deny. If it's at the end of a President's term, then denying, by default, moves it over to the next President.
Also, just to be clear on where I stand, I wish there were nine Scalias on the SC.