2020 Continued... the Supreme Court Nominee.

You know, it is irrelevant what the Senate did or didn't do in 2016, and irrelevant what they will or won't do now. Constitutionally, the President has the responsibility to put forth a nominee for the Supreme Court. If you can't get past that, you have serious problems. Obama put forth a candidate in 2016, and Trump has a responsibility to do so now. Just because it is an election year has absolutely no bearing on it whatsoever. It's just that simple.

The Senate, on the other hand, has Constitutional authority to basically do what they wish with that nominee. They can refuse to accept it and force the President to put forth another. They can hold hearings, or not, and they can vote, or not. They are not "bound" to do anything. And again, an election year has nothing to do with it.

If you -- you -- believed the Senate was wrong to refuse to accept President Obama's nominee in 2016, but believe they should now refuse Trump's nominee, then you are a hypocrite, plain and simple. If you believed they were right in 2016, but believe they should hold hearings now, then you are a hypocrite, plain and simple. You may not like what the President and the Senate does, but you cannot have it both ways, in either scenario.

If you must know, I believe the two situations are different. The Senate's "reasoning" for not holding hearings in 2016 was logical -- Obama was a lame duck President. There was going to be a new President that year no matter what. It was reasonable to allow the vote to take place so the new administration could make the nominee. This election does not involve a lame duck president. In fact, there's every likelihood Trump will be reelected. Therefore, the same "reasoning" does not necessarily exist. Trump's election WAS the people speaking. And they expect him -- and the Senate -- to do their jobs. He's not a lame duck.

While the logic was reasonable, I still believed the Senate should have held hearings on Merrick Garland in 2016, and held a vote. He was not going to be confirmed, but they should have at least done their jobs. I did NOT believe they were right in refusing to hear the nominee, even if he had no chance of being confirmed.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg herself commented on the situation in 2016. Of the President and the Senate, she said, "That's their job. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year."

I wholeheartedly agree. President Trump and the Senate should do their jobs. If the nominee Trump puts forth doesn't pass muster and isn't confirmed, so be it. That's how the process plays out. He -- or whoever wins in November -- can then put forth another candidate. And I'll abide by the process.

If you want anything else, then you do not wish to abide by the Constitution. And that is really sad.