Ruth Bader Ginsburg had died

His justification was Biden himself. Biden acknowledged that the process would be highly partisan probably because the Senate and Presidency were in the opposite hands.

February 23, 2016: “I can now confidently say the view shared by virtually everybody in my conference, is that the nomination should be made by the president the people elect in the election that’s underway right now,” McConnell told reporters following Senate Republicans’ first closed-door meeting after Scalia’s death. “I believe the overwhelming view of the Republican Conference in the Senate is that this nomination should not be filled, this vacancy should not be filled by this lame duck president…The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let’s give them a voice. Let’s let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be.”

March 16, 2016: “The Senate will continue to observe the ‘Biden rule’ so that the American people have a voice in this momentous decision on who to name to the court,” McConnell said in a floor speech the day Obama nominated Garland.

Garland is not a moderate. He rules liberally on everything there and is a judicial activist.

If you’re going to vote for Joe you gotta listen to what he says right? Your problem here is that you’re salty RBG didn’t retire under Obama and now her seat is going to be filled by a conservative. I have no doubt Democrats would fill it if the vacancy occurred during a Democratic President. The historical precedence lies with the GOP. Go read SirAnonymous’ post.

What are the characteristics of a moderate then and why does Garland not fulfill these characteristics?

To be clear, the point I made is the invoking the Biden rule in defence of Mitch's hypocritical actions is pretextual. None of what you've said appears to have addressed this.

In the end there are no "moral justifications" for political actions.

The Democrat party took a gamble with Obamacare and lost the Senate. 

Even CNN is reporting that the seat will be filled before January.

Mitch's stance is clearly hypocritical, but it's not like anybody really believed him the first time. It's just so out in the open now, but when it comes to SCOTUS nominations the reputation damage is probably a small price to pay for the power of a life-long SCOTUS seat.

“There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.” 

-Ruth Bader Ginsberg July 10 , 2016. New York Times

Amy is fine.

Pretty much anyone the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society says is qualified.

I can’t help you if you think Merrick Garland is a moderate. 

It’s pretty clear - the people gave the GOP the Senate and the Presidency through legitimate processes. 

When Joe Biden and the Democrats have a problem is when a Republican is in the picture. The people didn’t give Democrats the mandate prior to 2016 because they didn’t control the Senate. By contrast GOP has both. Historically, GOP should confirm the nominee.

Democrats are as much of hypocrites as Mitch McConnell and the Democrats. Deal with it.

The one thing Mitch is good at is getting judges on the bench. Even if there’s one week left, he’ll do it for sure. It’ll be easier during a lame duck session even if Trump loses

Merrick Garland being a moderate is a view expressed by many

Merrick Garland being a moderate is a view expressed by many versed in legalese and is hence my conclusion. If you think this is not the case, perhaps you should explain why instead of making a very obvious and predictable dodge.

No one is arguing that the GOP doesn't have the power. But again, this is not the point.

This has nothing to do with whether or not the Democrats are also hypocrites so still not the point?

If so, and Biden wins both House and Senate, he will just add another two seats to SCOTUS and have another liberal majority for another few decades. Yay.......

Funny how academia is disproportionately liberal huh?

https://www.kassounilaw.com/2016/05/judicial-nominee/

How? It is more conservative than liberal to me.

did you read the article? moderating the law causes uncertainty and civil unrest.

People need to know for sure that the government is going to protect them.

Can you explain? I am not old enough to be in any college.

Funny how academia is disproportionately liberal huh?

Glad we agree then. Trump and nominate and Senate should vote. Period.

Your dodging says it all - glad we agree that they’re hypocrites as well

Their reasonings are certainly more convincing than the hot air you put out.

Not really. Can and should are somewhat different. This congress has the power certainly but from a consistency standpoint, I think the precedent set by Mitch in 2016 should be followed.

The original point was that using the Biden rule is pretextual and that Mitch is a hypocrite.

Do you see how calling the Democrats hypocrites and asserting that the republicans have the power to seat a judge have nothing to do with this point?

For example?