[thelastwave]

I don't think anyone seriously questions whether the non-approval of Merrick Garland was done in good faith or not. Rather, the phraseology used is whether it was constitutional. McConnell didn't use a pretext, he flat out acknowledged what he was doing, and that it was constitutionally his prerogative.

[kennywinker]

But much of government and society runs on precedent and tradition. What mcconnel did was constitutional, but the reasons he gave were not authentic, or he would not have approved Amy Coney Barrett for the same reasons he gave for not approving Merrick Garland. Those reasons matter. I.e. if a cop lets you off with a warning because “you were only going 10 over the speed limit”, and then gives someone else a ticket for going 9 over the limit, yes both people broke the law, but that is likely corrupt behavior to punish or excuse one of those speeders, or to meet a secret quota

[AnimalMuppet]

If I understand correctly, the precedent actually is to go ahead with a Supreme Court nomination if the President and Senate majority are of the same party, and not if they are of different parties. Barrett and Garland are both following precedent.

[kennywinker]

Mcconnell’s statement (february 2016) was:

> The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president

On September 26, 2020 Amy Coney Barrett was nominated and confirmed a month later - barely over a week before the election.

[AnimalMuppet]

Yes, that's what he said. That doesn't make what I said untrue, though...