To have been unassailable, the McConnell principle should have been stated as
“All we are doing is following the long-standing tradition of not fulfilling a nomination in the middle of a presidential year — when the Senate and President are of different parties and the vacancy had been held by a Justice of a party different from the party of the nominee.
Since at least 1945 there has not been an election year vacancy filled by a President when the Senste is of the opposite party AND the nominee is of a different party than the Justice previously filling the vacant seat
The key point is that since at least 1945 no President other than Obama ever tried to nominate, and no President has succeeded succeeded in successfully nominating, a Justice of a party different from the Senate and whose confirmation would result in a “seat switch”.
To have been unassailable, the McConnell principle should have been stated as
“All we are doing is following the long-standing tradition of not fulfilling a nomination in the middle of a presidential year — when the Senate and President are of different parties and the vacancy had been held by a Justice of a party different from the party of the nominee.
Since at least 1945 there has not been an election year vacancy filled by a President when the Senste is of the opposite party AND the nominee is of a different party than the Justice previously filling the vacant seat
The key point is that since at least 1945 no President other than Obama ever tried to nominate, and no President has succeeded succeeded in successfully nominating, a Justice of a party different from the Senate and whose confirmation would result in a “seat switch”.
Although a few of his colleagues were confused on the concept, McConnell made clear that his obstruction was in the opposite-party scenario. https://eppc.org/publication/mcconnells-supreme-court-tactics-politics-101/
Democrats always start it.