The differences between 2016 and 2020

If I had $10 for every time I've heard or read the names "Merrick Garland" or "Mitch McConnell" since the weekend, I'd never have to worry about money again.

The premise being, of course, that there's something hypocritical and inconsistent between McConnell having the Senate sit on Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court in 2016 after the death of Antonin Scalia, and his planning to proceed with confirming a nomination that President Trump will soon submit to replace the deceased Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Anyone who cannot see the obvious differences between then and now is either ignorant, or being intentionally intellectually dishonest.

In 2016, President Obama was the definition of a lame duck. He was in the final months of his last term as president. It was a certainty that he would no longer be in office the next year since he was term-limited.

In 2020, President Trump is running for re-election with a very good chance, despite what the liberals in the press tell you, that he'll be inaugurated for his second term in January. There is no certainty that he will no longer be president next year.

It would be different, and like 2016, if Trump had chosen not to run for a second term. But he's on the ballot, and that changes everything.

Besides, in 2016, Trump was such a long shot to win the presidency that it could be argued that McConnell was saving the appointment of Scalia's replacement for Hillary Clinton. After all, just about everyone expected that she would win the election. According to those who know McConnell, even he was surprised at Trump's victory and was in fact already preparing to do business and make deals with her.

The statements that are being made about the Senate and presidency being controlled by different parties in 2016 and being controlled by the same party this year really shouldn't factor into the discussion. They are irrelevant, and McConnell does himself no favors by bringing this up.

If this was Trump's second term and he was for sure on his way out the door, then things might be different. If that was the case, as it was with Obama, then there would be merit to the argument that McConnell is being hypocritical. But the circumstances this year are completely different. And if you don't recognize that, you're either clueless or willfully blind.

For reasons known only to her, which she seemingly has taken to the grave, RBG chose to hold on to her associate justice position until her death. She battled cancer for years, and had a number of other health issues as she got older. She could have retired during Obama's presidency, giving him a chance to appoint another radical leftist in her place, but she hung on. It's been said that Obama himself made overtures to her that perhaps she should retire and step aside in favor of a younger liberal who could serve for decades. But mention that, and you get accused of being a conspiracy theorist and spreading baseless rumors by the same people who insist that Trump blackmailed Anthony Kennedy into retiring.

Trump has shown a knack for getting RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) and COINs (Conservatives Only In Name) to expose themselves, and he's done it again with his stated intentions to move forward with nominating a replacement for RBG. The usual suspects, Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski, have indicated they want to wait until after the presidential election to confirm an appointee.

Let that sink in: These supposed conservatives are willing to take the risk of allowing Kamala Harris (or whomever would actually be running things behind the scenes in a Joe Biden presidency, since he's obviously not capable of dong the job) to nominate a Supreme Court justice for a lifetime appointment, instead of giving Trump the chance to name a constitutional originalist. And odds are they'd side with Democrats to approve a Biden appointee.

I've felt from the start that McConnell mishandled the 2016 situation. Instead of sitting on the Garland nomination, he should have allowed the Senate to vote on it. But he was probably afraid that he couldn't keep the Republican caucus together to reject Garland or any other Obama nominee. Romney wasn't in the Senate then, but Murkowski, the late John McCain, Susan Collins, and a number of other squishy RINOs/COINs were. Even Lindsey Graham, who's emerged as an unlikely Trump ally, indicated that he would have been inclined to vote for Garland's confirmation. So there's certainly no indication that a GOP-controlled Senate in a Biden/Harris administration could be counted on to hold the line. Too many Republicans, especially a majority of those in the Senate, are of the "go along to get along" mentality, and it's why conservatives have such contempt for the establishment. It speaks volumes that McConnell is disliked by conservatives more than he is liberals.

My preference on a nominee? Of course, I like Ted Cruz. He's the personification of a constitutionalist. But I still want him to be president someday. Truth be told, I wish he was president now. And he's indicated he prefers to remain in the Senate, which is probably the best place from which to launch another future presidential bid.

Not knowing that RBG would die scant days later, Trump recently released a short list of potential appointees. In remarks since RBG's death, he's indicated that he will appoint a female to the seat. Amy Coney Barrett, a federal appellate judge, Scalia protege, and Notre Dame law professor, is frequently mentioned. Trump's list got a lot of attention in the Bluegrass State because it included Attorney General Daniel Cameron, but there's little chance Cameron will be considered. He's still early in his career and is being groomed to replace McConnell in the Senate when he likely retires during or after his next and final term.

(Possible scenario: McConnell goes all-in on the 2023 Kentucky governor's race, with the expectation that if the GOP ousts Andy Beshear, Cameron will be appointed to fill the vacancy when McConnell announces his departure from the Senate.)

But the fact remains, the circumstances surrounding this year's Supreme Court vacancy are vastly different than those from four years ago. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. There's nothing hypocritical about the way McConnell is handling this situation. And given that it's rare for me to praise anything McConnell does, that's saying something.