Being stupid on purpose

The Biden Rule

    I have to applaud Fox News for reporting critically on the Republican senators refusing to hold a hearing for Obama's nomination, Judge Merrick Garland.

    Obviously this is far from the only source I've referenced  and I'd be happy to share those with anyone, but my point here is that I expected Fox News to be up in arms about how Obama is going against the constitution and the words of his own VP, and how justified the Republican senators are in blocking the nomination. They've been very tough on Mitch McConnell and Orrin Hatch on their reliance on the Biden Rule that deems the election season toxic to such decisions and questions the power of the sitting president once the election has started, particularly in an election as volatile as it has been. But when then-Sen Biden made these claims, they were a reference to the time between the election of the next president, and that next president's inauguration.

    The argument being made is that Obama chose Garland as a move to politicize the Supreme Court and citing the Biden Rule, Republican senators are refusing to hold a hearing to confirm Garland's seat on the Supreme Court on the grounds that this is just a political move.

    The other side of the argument is, WHO THE FUCK CARES? Is the opposite position suggesting that the president is only a fully empowered president for 3 years? Even if Obama's nomination of Garland is some political gimmick, holding a hearing in no way means that anyone has to actually vote confirm Garland's seat.

    The power is ultimately with them, so refusing the hearing is CLEARLY the political gimmick if there is one. But that's almost besides the point. Merrick Garland is a highly respected judge who is seen as a unifier because he's centrist and not a highly liberal judge. This is not a terrible scenario for Republicans.

    By blocking Garland's nomination, they're only subjecting themselves for a potential scenario in which HRC or Bernie Sanders would be in charge of this appointment. And it's reasonable to assume that being past the election season, either one would choose a judge that is much further to the left than is Garland.

This just doesn't make sense. Can ANYONE help make sense of the former position??