"Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett Loves Her Personal Advancement More Than America"

Nor does nominee need to decline when nominated by elected President.

Riiight . . . because every Democratic nominee to the SCOTUS has always done the same thing.

Just when you thought the double standards and hypocrisy of the left couldn't get any crazier :::-/

I know the temptation to blow it out one's arse in imitation of The Dictator is difficult for weak "followers" to resist.

But here, you might still learn something - and if you don't, others will.

"Use my words against me": What GOP senators said about election-year SCOTUS picks in 2016 and now
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-09-21/republicans-flip-flop-rbg-scotus-replacement

Excerpt: "Not since 1932 has the Senate confirmed in a presidential election year a Supreme Court nominee to a vacancy arising in that year,” they wrote in their letter. “And it is necessary to go even further back — to 1888 — in order to find an election year nominee who was nominated and confirmed under divided government, as we have now.”

Thanks for being such an easy target.

What was it the last President said, oh yeah, Elections have consequences. He lost the Senate. He lost the nomination.

Since you can only think in party terms, guess you didn't see logic coming. I disagreed then, I disagreed now. If you're president and it happens on your watch, it's your job to make the appointment.

You lose.

But you also need the votes in the senate.

Mopes'l be mopes. Aachie, not Amy.

Why?