Help! When Mitch M stopped the Garland nomination

[ghostsinthemachine]

How many times has that happened? That scenario. No hearing.

[GoCubsGo]

1. None that I am aware of.

[MustLoveBeagles]

2. I think this was the first time

In the past if there was no hearing it was because the nominee withdrew themselves from consideration.

[MineralMan]

3. That is why elections matter.

In the Senate, with the new rules that are in place, you either have a majority or you have nothing.

GOTV! Please!

[FBaggins]

4. It depends on what you're counting

Only once for a supreme court nomination...

... but there's no constitutional difference between a supreme court nomination and that for an appellate court nominee, and that has certainly happened.

[PoliticAverse]

5. There have been several times in history when a nominee didn't get a vote...

You can see the outcome of all past nominations here:

https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominations.htm

All nominations with "N" in the "Result" column received "no action" from the Senate like Garland.

For a discussion of the history specifically of "hearings" on nominees, see:
https://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/mar/20/mark-herring/herring-says-all-supreme-court-nominees-back-1875-/

[Funtatlaguy]

6. We should have shut down the country when this happened. I know, I know....sigh.