probably because Merrick Garland wasn't admitted when there was almost a year to go until the election, so it was fair to think that's how the supreme court works now.
so you're saying it's OK to deny confirmations during election years (so it shouldn't have been done in 2016) or that it isn't OK to deny confirmations? Or are you saying since it's not in the constitution we can do whatever we want and consistency and precedent doesn't matter?
probably because Merrick Garland wasn't admitted when there was almost a year to go until the election, so it was fair to think that's how the supreme court works now.
The constitution says nothing about denying confirmations during election years.
so you're saying it's OK to deny confirmations during election years (so it shouldn't have been done in 2016) or that it isn't OK to deny confirmations? Or are you saying since it's not in the constitution we can do whatever we want and consistency and precedent doesn't matter?