> Democrats absolutely would not have blocked Scalia's replacement for a year,
Yes, as we’ve established, they wanted to push through a replacement as fast as possible.
> and even if they had, they would absolutely not have ignored the precedent they set and did the opposite thing now.
Doubtful. Unless you’re implying that the Democrats suddenly found religion and decided that what the Republicans did in 2016 was, in hindsight, something they’ve now come to discover was The Right Way To Do Things afterall. To the contrary, they _still_ whine about 2016. Hardly sounds like the party that truly believes in the sanctity of this “no SC appointments in an election year” thing.
And you’ll notice that they’re currently harping on RBG’s “dying wish” that her seat remain vacant until a “new president is installed.” Not until after the election, but for four more years. This is what political parties do, they latch onto whatever will benefit them most.
> they should double the size of the bench.
And that’s not “naked malevolence”, to imply that the best way to undo the advantage obtained by sheer luck (timing of a vacancy) is to completely slam your fist on the metaphorical scale by making it impossible for the other guy to gain an advantage unless _he_ later packs the court by an even larger degree than you did?
The fallacy on display here is false equivalence. I agree that both parties bend facts and exploit logistical loopholes to serve their own interests. I agree that it's easy to find examples of hypocrisy in both parties. But Republicans do these things so much more frequently, and, especially now, so much more nakedly and freely, that it's actually a categorically different thing. It's totally disingenuous to say they both do it and therefore they're both the same.
Yes, as we’ve established, they wanted to push through a replacement as fast as possible.
> and even if they had, they would absolutely not have ignored the precedent they set and did the opposite thing now.
Doubtful. Unless you’re implying that the Democrats suddenly found religion and decided that what the Republicans did in 2016 was, in hindsight, something they’ve now come to discover was The Right Way To Do Things afterall. To the contrary, they _still_ whine about 2016. Hardly sounds like the party that truly believes in the sanctity of this “no SC appointments in an election year” thing.
And you’ll notice that they’re currently harping on RBG’s “dying wish” that her seat remain vacant until a “new president is installed.” Not until after the election, but for four more years. This is what political parties do, they latch onto whatever will benefit them most.
> they should double the size of the bench.
And that’s not “naked malevolence”, to imply that the best way to undo the advantage obtained by sheer luck (timing of a vacancy) is to completely slam your fist on the metaphorical scale by making it impossible for the other guy to gain an advantage unless _he_ later packs the court by an even larger degree than you did?