I am legitimately curious, what do you make of the myriad Republican senators doing a complete 180 in regards to seating a new Justice during an election cycle? Yaknow, after they said Obama shouldn't do it, after they blocked Garland, and after they claimed that, if this happened with a Republican president, they would feel the same way?
Elinda's phrasing (and hacked double posting!) aside, she's not completely wrong. There is a difference when the president and the senate are of the same party versus when they are not. The question of delaying confirmation until after an election or going ahead before the election only even comes up when the president is of one party and the senate majority is of the other. There's no reason to even consider it when that's not the case because there's no gain to delaying. The senate majority is never going to get a better nominee if they delay, so they wont.
And yes, the same thing occurs if the shoe is on the other foot. If the Dems had controlled the senate in 2016, is there any doubt that they would have moved forward and confirmed Obama's pick? Of course not. And if the Dems controlled the senate right now, is there any doubt that they would delay the confirmation until after the election? Also, of course not.
At the risk of using a sport analogy, insisting that the same "rule" apply regardless of who is in control of the senate is like arguing that if a football team on offence at the end of the 2nd quarter chooses to use a time out to give them more time to score, then they should use their last time out when the other team has the ball at the end of the 2nd quarter in another game, cause "the rule" apparently is to always use time outs to allow for a last second score at the end of the half, right? Um... No. You do it if it benefits you, and you don't when it doesn't.
I do find it interesting that you speak of the Republicans making a 180 on this, while failing to mention that the Dems are doing the same thing. The same folks who argued passionately that a nominee should always be confirmed speedily, even in an election year, are now arguing the exact opposite now.
The only actual consistency here is that in both cases the Democrats are arguing that the GOP should take an action that hurts the GOP and helps the Dems. Which is kinda silly.