Joe (and his puppeteer) thought that lame argument had validity? Should a terror attack be ignored until the election?

Exactly - which is why he owes a seat and a huge apology to Merrick Garland.

Get off your pretend high horse thesis. You know damn well if the roles were reversed, the Democrats that your post implies are such angels, would do the exact same thing that McConnell did. There's too much at stake not to.

Which is also why IF (notice the big IF) there is any apology to be made, it's Mitch who would make it.

And for what it's worth, I agree that the Garland nomination should have been considered by the Senate. However, using the same sick political mentality that's on display by the Dems regarding ACB's nomination, the Pubs could have easily voted him down. They probably wouldn't have, as he seems to be an eminently qualified candidate for the scotus.

Which is exactly why any Democrat with an ounce of integrity should consider her nomination on the basis of her qualifications. Only Democrat senators and media hacks (and their brainwashed minions) would be against an individual roundly considered as qualified as ABC, on the basis of nothing more than their own partisan political hackery.

Not at all. The Senate was not controlled by the Democrats, so they were likewise elected to advise and consent to Obama's appointment. Which they rightfully exercised their right to not confirm.

In the current case (and historically), the president and senate are aligned and therefore it's still his appointment to make and the senates to confirm until he leaves office in 2025 (or possibly 2021).

There, you've been educated.

They didn't even take a vote on whether they would confirm.

That's not advice and consent - that's just straight up not doing their Constitutional obligation. So yes, he owes Merrick Garland a seat at the Supreme Court.

Nope. You cannot spin the truth away. They told him they would wait for the next president (which everyone thought would be Hilary anyway except she sucked and lost). That is their choice 100% not to bring his nomination for a vote. It's correctly part of the system.

Obama is owed nothing (except a bill perhaps for all the damage he caused).

If this were a DNC Senate, they'd wait. If Obama had a DNC Senate, they'd have voted. It's the way it's designed. Working just fine. Historical precedent is completely on Trump's side. Go stew in a corner, but accept the truth.

"That is their choice 100% not to bring his nomination for a vote. It's correctly part of the system."

No. That is straight up not true. There should be a full Supreme Court at all times and if there isn't, it is the President's job to fill it - with advice and consent of the Senate, but nowhere does it say that the Senate has the right to stop the President from doing his job and thereby keeping SCOTUS short staffed.

Glad to see you say that thesis. Welcome to the ACB bandwagon! 👍👍👍

Technically they aren't "short staffed" Right now the number is 9, but has not always been that high. You would rather have seen the Senate waste taxpayer money (like the DNC Impeachment hoax) by letting him send, and them voting down (they can do so for whatever reason of course)... That would be silly. Better to be the grown ups and let him know they were not going to approve one so close to the election. That is their role... and there is no timetable for it being done (fast or slow).

This lunatic call to wait for the election is just stupid in this case. Especially with so much DNC cheating planned and already happening. It may well be they literally steal the white house and keep it a long time with their nefarious schemes to get rid or undermine the electoral college, let illegals vote, ballot harvesting, etc... Better to get the Supreme Court staffed with Constitutionalists while we can.

But to your point, since you agree the Senate should do its job and the President should fill the seat immediately, then you agree that Trump's nominee should be voted on before the election. That's the principle you're trying to claim. So regardless of the reasons Obama's was blocked, your reasoning agrees with Trump. Unless it's simply for the sake of undue revenge that you go against your own principles...

Um, Trump does have legal authority to pick a justice, and he should, but Obama should have as well. Lindsey Graham said "I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say, “Lindsey Graham said, ‘Let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,’” and you could use my words against me, and you’d be absolutely right." This is hypocrisy. But whatever. It's legal. But completely ridiculous.

Yes, Sen. Graham's statement was ridiculous on the surfaced. I'm sure he implied that if a GOP president and DNC Senate of course.

Obama chose not to send his nominee since he would not be approved due to timing. That's perfectly legal. There is no timeline for the Senate to confirm and they had the legal right to wait it out. Obama understood this, cried and whined about it for political points, but knew there was nothing to be done.

Not the case here. So not relevant.

Obama was voted in to power for four years too- but this time its different?

Yep Completely different obviously... that failed argument addressed above.

Obama SHOULD have sent his nomination. The Senate politely saved him the trouble by not agreeing to vote on it since it was close to the election. Had the Senate been DNC controlled, THEN Obama would have gotten his appointment.

It's all been very consistent and very proper.