Voters don't deserve an answer

[hollodero]

(10-14-2020, 11:51 AM)PhilHos Wrote: If Ted Cruz's numbers are right (and I'm going off memory right now, FYI) there have been 29 times where a vacancy on the SCOTUS occurred during a presidential election year. Of those 29, 22 times happened when the the same party held the senate and presidency. And all 22 nominees were confirmed. The remaining times, different parties held the senate and presidency. And only twice has a nominee been confirmed. 

So, in the entire history of the United States of America, during a presidential election where the current president is a different party than the majority in the Senate, only 2 judicial Supreme Court justices have been confirmed.

Is that so. OK, if that is close to being true (and I believe you that it roughly is) that is a point to consider in this argument.
I'd still figure denying a nominee a hearing 11 months before an election is still rather unprecedented, but I could be wrong about that too, since I did not even know the information you just gave me.

(10-14-2020, 11:51 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Yes, any Republican in the Senate in 2016 that argued that a nominee should wait until after the election who is now voting to confirm is a hypocrite. That said, ACB's nomination and confirmation hearing is not unheard of nor is it unprecedented and it is especially NOT unconstitutional.

Nor is expanding the SC. OK it might be unprecedented, but it is not unconstitutional.