The president nominating someone and the Senate giving them a vote is normal enough.
Sure.. but not without hearings and stuff. Given the tight time-frame before the election, none of that will happen. That's pretty not-normal.
I agree that 2016 was the more obviously outrageous situation.
<Quote>As I argued more at length in my post below, the real problem of the Dems / liberals isn't that they will soon have a SC minority, but that they need a SC majority/deadlock so badly.
It's more that they cannot afford to have an obstructionist court, especially if they want to respond to the current crises like they want to.
The GOP, remember, also has needed a majority badly. They've been singularly frustrated in their attempts to overturn Roe, ACA, and to expand gun rights even more. That's kinda why they've been so laser focus on locking in a majority in the Court in the first place.
<Quote>Conservatives haven't had a clear, unambiguous majority on the SC in many decades (even though there was a large majority of Republican-appointed justices for much of that time), it shouldn't be such a disaster that they will gain one now. </Quote>
That seems disingenuous, given the major thrusts of their judicial activism.
I don't think those two are major issues with a court expansion, tbh. Neither is looking like they'll vote for whoever Trump nominates now, either.