...There is nothing unconstitutional or hypocritical here except on your side.

In 2016, Obama (rightly) nominated a replacement for Scalia. EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT IN THE COUNTRY argued right up election day that Garland should be confirmed despite it being an election year. The Senate has its own role to play in the confirmation process, and, as is its right, the majority decided not to proceed with a confirmation hearing, which would have only led to the (somewhat embarrassing) defeat of Garland. The party that controls the Senate controls the confirmation process then, just as it does now -- perfectly consistent.

In 2020, Trump (rightly) nominated a replacement for RBG. Now, for some reason, EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT IN THE COUNTRY is arguing that a new Justice should NOT be confirmed during an election year. There's your hypocrisy. The Senate itself is performing exactly as it did in 2016 with the majority making the decision on whether or not to confirm the nominated Justice.

As for whether this is all unconstitional, the President and Senate are performing the black letter responsibilities laid out for them in nominating and deciding whether to confirming Barrett. I understand that the left can make some really twisted constitutional arguments from time to time, but this one seems extreme even for them.

Other than that, I agree with you that "Gus" was a great movie.