First, Kendall thinks it meaningful to state that my “proposed metric of time from first nomination to confirmation,” while “a fair metric to use from the nominee’s perspective,” “does not comport well with Senate rules.” His observation is a silly irrelevance. Would he really not have made his complaints about delay if Senate Republicans had caused the then-pending nominations to be sent back to the White House over the August recess (thus requiring renominations by President Obama)? Would he withdraw those complaints if Republicans were to do so over the next recess? Isn’t it plain that what Kendall calls the “nominee’s perspective” is also the perspective of the White House—and of anyone trying to make a serious comparison of delays?
Second, Kendall somehow twists his flagrant misuse of renominated candidates into a contention that I’m inaccurately comparing “how two Congresses performed on the judicial nominations front.” I haven’t been comparing any “two Congresses” at all. I’ve been discussing how Bush 43 nominees fared versus Obama nominees. It’s Kendall who’s been making the comparison that he now labels “really inaccurate.”