Now follow the logic... here.... breadcrumbs. I know its a little difficult for you.

Its happened only 15 times in US history that a supreme court vacancy opened up in an election year and the president nominated someone that same year.

We have 2 categories that those 15 times can be divided up into.
Category 1: President and Senate of same party ( 8 occurrences and this applies to this year with Trump)
Category 2: President and Senate of differing parties (7 occurrences and this applies to 2016 with Merrick Garland)

In all those 15 times that it has happened? only 8 of those occurrences happened to have the President and Senate from the same party. Which is exactly the scenario we find ourselves in right now. AND 7 OUT OF THOSE 8 OCCURANCES... WHERE THE SEAT OPENED UP IN AN ELECTION YEAR AND PRESIDENT AND THE SENATE WERE FROM THE SAME PARTY.... 7 OUT OF 8 WERE CONFIRMED. THAT IS THE PRECEDENCE WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SENATE AND THE PRESIDENT BEING FROM THE SAME PARTY. PRECEDENCE. PRECEDENCE. PRECEDENCE. THERE IT IS. LITERALLY STARING AT YOU IN THE FACE. THIS IS THE EXACT SCENARIO THAT APPLIES TO THIS YEAR WHERE TRUMP IS GOING TO NOMINATE A JUSTICE IN AN ELECTION YEAR.

Now... that accounts for only 8 of the 15 times its come up in an election year.

The other 7??? That is where the president and the Senate were not of the same party. ONLY 2 OUT OF THE 7 NOMINATIONS WERE CONFIRMED... THE LAST TIME THAT HAPPENED WAS IN 1888!! THAT IS THE LITERAL PRECEDENCE! STARING AT YOU IN THE FACE. THIS IS THE SCENARIO THAT APPLIES TO MERRICK GARLAND.

Yet ignorant morons like to claim that the republicans set the rules back in 2016 with Merrick Garland. Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty will admit that there is precedence with both scenarios here and that both are distinct from each other. 2016... and now.

But now the Democrats are threatening to pack the courts if they win the senate back this election. This is in reality the constitutional crisis. To break the supreme court because the democrats cannot accept the fact that they lost this round.

AND THE THING THAT IS SO FUCKING HILARIOUS???? THE DEMOCRATS ARE MAKING ALL THESE THREATS OF PACKING THE COURTS? AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY REALIZE... "WAIT!! OOOPS!! WE SHOULDN'T BE MAKING THESE THREATS.... WHAT IF WE DON'T TAKE BACK THE SENATE AND THE REPUBLICANS DECIDE TO DO WHAT WE HAVE BEEN THREATENING TO DO??? AND PACK THE COURTS.... UH.. WE BETTER SHUT UP WITH ALL THIS."

And now you're seeing them lay off the threats of packing the court LoL but it doesn't change the fact that they will be willing to create a constitutional crisis because they are sore losers.

Yes.

The article you cited was garbage. The author doesn't understand any of the history. And I've laid it out for you even though you made the stupid personal attack that I am merely claiming to know more than you and citing no evidence.

Do your own damn research instead of regurgitating garbage articles written by people who are either intellectual morons or are purposefully deceiving the intellectual morons such as people who buy into the article you posted.

What i've cited above is basic knowledge that anyone following honest news sources the last week would understand and already know. Now... Evidences that are so prolifically shared by so many outlets this last week? Those evidences shouldn't be required, tbh, as part of a discussion on "current events".

Not sure if you're just wading through your own figurative filth mixed with dishonest commentary from your favorite news sources... when you do that, you miss out on points that are vital to understanding whats really going on.