Ruth Bader Ginsburg is Dead. No, Really!

[Antisthenes]

My point was missed.... either the right exists for POTUS to choose the nominee or it doesn't.


Two words.........Merrick Garland


Justice Scalia is spinning in his grave after seeing McConnell wiping his greasy, filthy hands with what's left of the Constitution that old Antonin so rigidly adhered to.  

Was Mitch right then or  is he right now? Can't be both. Was he a scumbag then or is he one now.  No question mark was posted as that was entirely rhetorical. The answer is quite obvious.

hy·poc·ri·sy
/həˈpäkrəsē/
noun
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

I've stated it before but it bears repeating,

"Ask not  for whom the bell tolls".....

I fail to see how Merritt Garland applies to your argument, He WAS nominated by the POTUS. After that nomination, the role of the POTUS in the selection is complete. It then falls to the Senate to say yay or nay.

So yes, it is the right of the POTUS to select the nominee. It is the right of the Senate after that nomination to approve or disapprove. In the case of Garland, the Senate disapproved. at that point, it befell the POTUS to select another nominee for the process to recycle, and that happened, too. In the interim, the POTUS changed. It could have been Hillary doing the selection of the next nominee. Thank God that didn't happen!

.

The American people should now expect the same consideration to be applicable. Particularly since the politics are deeply in play....when the Republicans win...nominate. Conversely, should the Dems win....