I don't justify the Senate GOP (I would have voted Garland down instead of not consider him), but it's hillarious that the Dems who started SCOTUS fights long ago and never got a liberal nomination crushed before are crying. But I guess it's ok if the Dems do it ;-)
What, you think denying one of a president's nominee
(but confirming another choice) in itself is grounds for total future obstruction? Democrats never denied Republicans a seat on the court just so they could hold out and try to fill it themselves. Maybe Democrats blocked some nominees they found too ideological or otherwise controversial, but they still let someone in. Also take for instance Clarence Thomas, the most conservative member of the court, who was still eventually approved in 1992 despite Democrats having a large Senate majority.
If you want to argue that Republicans are justified in making for nasty SCOTUS confirmation fights, then fine. But Republicans were never justified in blockading a seat for a year just so they could steal the nomination from a Democratic president. There is no way for you to justify that.
Further, I don't even know why you would want to. It's in everyone's best interests to have a Senate that continues to adhere to various traditions. Republicans won't always control it, and now people like Mitch have ensured that the future of judicial nominations remain a hyper-partisan affair where each party refuses to seat the other party's nominees just so they can keep the seats for themselves.
Great f'ing job.
