Those shocked that the Republicans will push to fill a Supreme Court vacancy when Trump is running for reelection when they wouldn't when Obama was headed out of office might be forgetting that democrats demanded a hearing and now reversed their position. It's all sides.
Republicans can say there's multiple objective differences that explain their different position now. Other than "we hate Trump", what else is different that could explain a rational objection to a vote from those who demanded a vote 4 years ago?
@SecondJon The main one I (not a member of any political party, but I think I can argue the democrat position well enough) see is that there now exists a strong, recent precedent not to do the thing. That the democrats didn't like the rule last time is less important than that the rule exists. Following the rule only when it benefits you is inconsistent with the integrity citizens expect from their elected leaders.
Principles aside, I think there's a pragmatic justification, too. Looking at the 538 models, the democrats are very likely to retain the lower house, something like 3:1 favourites to win the presidency, and likelier than not to control the senate. If I were the republican senate leadership, I'd offer a deal to the democrat senators: this senate won't consider the nomination, and in return the democrats publicly pledge not to expand the Supreme Court to add more liberal justices during the next administration, should they win. Then:
- refusing the deal would indicate that democrats plan to pack the court, which is close to political suicide in an election year, plus the republicans confirm the conservative justice for a 6-3 majority in the meantime
- accepting the deal would leave the court with a 5-3 conservative majority pending the outcome of the elections, and gives the republicans a serious feat of statesmanship to point to.
If the democrats should accept and then renege on the deal, or refuse it and win the senate anyway, it doesn't really matter - they'd be as happy to expand the court to thirteen and pack it 7-6 as they would be to expand it to eleven and pack it 6-5. So there's not much downside for republicans in making the offer.
@khird perhaps. I think nailing down "the rule" is purely subjective. The rule is either not to hold a vote during any election year (which is 50% or more of years), or don't hold a vote during the final months of a lame duck president (at term limit) when a different party holds the senate.
There's so much objectively different this time, whatever happened last time doesn't seem that it would apply.
I also don't think after what happened with the last nominee there's any good faith left for any kind of negotiation or promises.
