Ahh, the old, very tired 'advise and consent' argument justifying McConnell's denying Garland a hearing.
McConnell said that depriving Garland of a hearing and a vote, in the last year of Obama's presidency equaled 'advise and consent' as instructed by the Constitution.
The founding fathers never imagined a Senate, a group of noble and learned men, they thought, would be so low that they would engage in a petty partisan move whereby one party would cling to power so much so as not to allow a sitting president to nominate a judge, and deny him or her, who well deserved, at the minimum, a hearing ( where the actual 'advise and consent' takes place ) and a vote.
They didn't imagine that in the future, the caliber of the Senate would decline so much, that they should have 'defined' more clearly what they meant by 'advise and consent'. Had they the ability to foresee such an erosion of the caliber of the Senate, they most surely would have, in my view
They just assumed they would understand the spirit of the thing, the founding fathers gave the Senate the benefit of the doubt, that to define it would be insulting to their intelligence, that having to define every little damned thing that Trump and republicans can twist words to further their agenda, and bend the constitution until it screams for mercy, had the founding fathers had been clairevoyant enough to foresee the moral decline of this senate, the constitution would have had far more definitions given as to precisely what their intent was. That is a reasonable conclusion.
.
It begs the question; What is the real reason McConnell wouldn't give a hearing and vote? The Senators knew Garland very well. They know he's qualified, and so, with a hearing and a vote, they'd have to look him in the eye and vote against him, and they KNOW that if they gave a hearing, they would not be able to look him in the eye and say 'you're not qualified" when they, and he, know that he is more than qualified and that if they voted no, it would be OBVIOUS they are being highly partisan, especially after a lengthy hearing whereby his answers to probing questions would be more than satisfactory. This would be difficult to do if you had to do it directly to the eyes of someone whom you know, professionally, whom you know, and he knows, damn well you don't have a legitimate reason to vote against. They didn't give him a hearing and a vote because they lack spine and integrity. By not giving a hearing and a vote they prove, incontrovertibly, they are spineless cowards and they have no moral compass whose only objective is naked power for power's sake. And, we now can add 'colossal hypocrites' to that list of adjectives.
