Here's one about Schumer:
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/chuck-schumer-supreme-court-antonin-scalia-219392
Including McConnell saying in 2007 "all nominees should get a bite regardless of timing." (Paraphrased)
Here's my main thing. If the roles were reversed, and a Democrat president and a Democrat Senate 50 days out of an election got the opportunity to replace a conservative member of scotus, they would jump on that immediately. They're going to try to play the moral High Ground here, but they have no ground to stand on.
Vox:
https://www.vox.com/2016/2/16/11026724/obama-press-conference-supreme-court
"And there are a lot of Republican senators who are going to be under a lot of pressure from various special interests and various constituencies and many of their voters to not let any nominee go through. No matter who I nominate. But that's not how the system is supposed to work. That's not how our democracy is supposed to work."
Here's my take on it. I 100% believe that you should not be able to fire somebody for their sexual orientation or their gender identity, even though I believe that biology rules on that one and not mental illness. However, the Supreme Court added this to a law that was passed almost 50 years ago that did not have this as an idea when it was passed. They are adding to the law based on their opinion. I realize that they applied the "but, then" test, however the Supreme Court does not have, nor should it have, the power to arbitrarily add meaning to a law that was not in consideration when they originally passed the law.
Some of our work is already done:
https://dailycaller.com/2020/09/18/democrats-supreme-court-vacancy-2016-vacancy-merrick-garland/