When United States Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement last week, the usual Democrat suspects took to that bastion of erudite intellect known as social media to invoke what I'm calling "The McConnell Rule," which was a variation of "The Biden Rule." These so-called rules were designed to prevent the filling of a Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year.

Can Democrats, especially in Congress, ever talk about a single subject or issue without regurgitating their usual debunked lies, myths, revisionist history, and conspiracy theories?

This is the genesis of the lie, birthed in 2016, that Senator Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, and the Senate Republicans "stole" a Supreme Court justice seat from President Obama. In February of that year, the late, venerable Justice Antonin Scalia died. A month later, Obama nominated Merrick Garland, a United States Court of Appeals federal judge. The president said he intended to fulfill his constitutional duty to appoint a justice. Immediately thereafter, McConnell led a Senate GOP refusal to even hold confirmation hearings. Unprecedented, yes, but was it "unconstitutional," which is what Democrats always label that with which they disagree?

It was not unconstitutional, because nowhere in the Constitution is there a single syllable that the Senate is legally obligated to hold hearings. (As a P.S., President George W. Bush also believed, erroneously, that the Senate is legally obligated to vote on Supreme Court nominees.)

Judicial Activism and Whataboutism

This lie aligns with most Democrats' view of our Constitution: that it's a living, breathing, tofu-eating, organic, raw unfiltered goat milk, vanilla chai latte organism, with infinite malleability to conform to today's standards, as opposed to the standards of 5 million years ago, when it was written. To paraphrase Scalia's originalist joke about the dangers of judicial activism, you want certain rights? They're in there! All that's wonderful and amazing is in there, the text be damned!

At the time of McConnell's resistance, did I think the GOP should have at least held hearings? Yes.

In hindsight, I'm relieved that no hearings were held, because with 52 Republican senators at the time of Garland's nomination, I agree with retiring Utah sen. Orrin Hatch, who, at the time, was confident that Garland could be confirmed. We know that all 48 Democrat senators would have voted "aye," which means that the Dems needed only two GOP free agents (I'm lookin' at you, Senator John McCain), since Vice President Joe Biden would be the tie-breaking vote.

The Biden Rule invoked by McConnell was related to a floor speech given by then-senator Biden in 1992. Context is important: Biden specifically implored for a delay in nominating a Supreme Court justice if a vacancy arose, in large part because Republican George H.W. Bush was president. There was no vacancy to fill and no nominee to consider; he didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell had done.

"Whataboutism" is an everyday political narrative tactic utilized by all sides. New York senator Chuck Schumer, in response to Kennedy's retirement, cited the Biden Rule as whataboutism to the McConnell Rule, which was whataboutism to the Biden Rule.

I never understood why McConnell just didn't say it was not constitutionally incumbent upon the Senate to hold hearings. For those who disagreed with the move, that's your prerogative. However, parroting the lie that the seat was Ocean's Eleven stolen makes you a sheeple acolyte of the Democrats and DMIC (Democrat Media Industrial Complex).

Let's Talk about Filibusters, Baby

President Trump will most likely have the votes to get his nominee confirmed. I must put "most likely" in italics because of the Tessio Republicans in the Senate, who have mastered the art of the anti-Trump deal and often flirt with NeverTrumpism.

Democrats who wear hats shaped like labia were apoplectic when the GOP tinkered with tradition and pushed the nuclear option button, which lowered the required number of "aye" votes to confirm a justice from 60 to a simple majority (and if a tie, Vice President Pence breaks it), paving the way for Neil Gorsuch's confirmation to replace Scalia.

Here's a "what if?" mixed with some whataboutism. In 2013, Senate Democrats, led by Nevada's Harry Reid, launched their own nuclear option. Though they didn't touch the Supreme Court 60-vote threshold, they enacted a simple majority rule for Cabinet and federal judicial appointments, both of which had traditionally required 60 votes. Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren advocated for the Reid nuclear option the year before and threatened to filibuster Gorsuch's confirmation.

The "what if?" is this: had Hillary Clinton been elected in 2016, and Republicans promised to reject her Supreme Court nominee, is it not unrealistic to believe that the Senate Democrats would have done exactly what the Senate Republicans did for Trump, given the precedent established by the Reid-led Democrats? Let's presume that the Senate was the same for her as for Trump; a Clinton nominee would have had every one of the 48 Democrats vote "aye," meaning she'd need only two free agents to get her nominee confirmed. And you all well know that McCain was a guaranteed "aye." Trust me: at least one other Republican would have wanted in on "I'm with Her."

An Ode to Kennedy

Trump's potential nominee list includes judges with centuries of combined experience, as well as Senator Mike Lee of Utah.

Whomever Trump nominates, count on Democrat slander. Perhaps they'll conjure up the spirit of former Massachusetts senator Ted Kennedy, who called Robert Bork, President Reagan's nominee in 1987, a fascist segregationist Stalinist. Maybe Trump's nominee to replace Kennedy will get the Aryan Nations or Islamaphobia or something-or-other-phobia treatment.

It sounds so tyrannically treasonous to bandy about the lie that we Trump voters "stole" Obama's Garland seat.

Now that Kennedy is bidding adieu, he can be proud of his body of work. His departure is a reminder of what Obama said in 2009: elections have consequences. If Clinton had defeated Trump, the recent 5-4 Supreme Court rulings would have been the opposite 5-4, with the judicial activists as the majority. It is not hyperbole to posit that Trump could be the most consequential president, in terms of our federal and supreme courts, since FDR. Whether intended or not, Kennedy will influence the midterm election results, just as Scalia's passing influenced the 2016 election. Let's hope that America First voters not forget that elections still, and always will, have consequences.

Rich Logis is the host of The Rich Logis Show and author of the upcoming book 10 Warning Signs Your Child Is Becoming a Democrat. Follow him at https://www.therichlogisshow.com.