The article I posted also looked at what parties controlled the Senate and Presidency and quoted more recent precedents where the parties were split, and the pr

The article I posted also looked at what parties controlled the Senate and Presidency and quoted more recent precedents where the parties were split, and the president got to appoint. Moreover, stopping a vote entirely? That's unprecedented. Had there been a vote on Garland, he almost certainly would have been appointed. Many of the moderate Republicans in the senate, facing elections, would not have been able to justify voting him down to their constituents. For the National Review to leave those pieces out is dishonest. I'm also not just referring to that article. The National Review has been dishonest propaganda for a while, making dishonest arguments that manipulate the facts (usually by omission or careful selections as here, but occasionally outright lying) to justify the actions of what has become a fascist party.