Sure. I will concede it's hypocrisy. It's political hypocrisy.

Republicans chose not to do the hearing on Garland because they had the majority, and it was close enough to the election for them to politically justify postponing the hearing. That never would have happened if there was a Republican president. They would have just had a hearing an nominated the Justice. However, because they didn't like and trust Obama, they grandstanded. The consequence should have been voting them out of office if we, as citizens, believed that was an abuse of power. However, that didn't happen, because enough people weren't incensed about the decision. I believe the dems would have done the same, and the result would be the same. The Senate has options it can use if it wants to oppose the President's appointees. With Garland, they chose to postpone, as they thought it would be less damaging than voting against an otherwise qualified candidate.

Our constitution is a system of checks and balances. It was designed to keep one institution from dominating the others. Of these branches, the President was supposed to have the LEAST amount of power. However, in this instance, with the President and Senate aligned, there is no need for them exercise their opposition. You couldn't convince me that the Dems wouldn't push in their choice if they had the power to do so, so I don't really understand what the left is complaining about other than they don't have any power to stop it. Their only play is to wine about it in such a way that it causes some people to vote for them in the upcoming election. They could have also used the filibuster if Mitch hadn't gone nuclear.

Politically, the Senate Repbulicans are just making smart moves. Ethically, you could call it hypocritical. If I were them, I wouldn't take any chances with an election that is going to most likely end up in the hands of the Supreme Court.

---