Not the case. The Republicans were not following the precedent and as usual were being obstructionist.They call this the Joe Biden rule. He argued that if the vacancy was close to an election, you let the voters decide who appoints his replacement. You'll have to take it up with him.
And Merrick Garland would have been a disaster, just like Sotomayor and Kagan.
I think I've heard you claim to be pro-life. If so, why are you not thanking God for the Biden rule? Did you want yet another pro-murder justice?
www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/02/29/one-third-of-all-u-s-presidents-appointed-a-supreme-court-justice-in-an-election-year/?utm_term=.38d946121337
"Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing had hardly been made public when Republicans began proclaiming that President Obama should not appoint the late justice’s successor. President Obama countered that he would perform his constitutional duty and nominate a successor to Scalia, adding, “Your job doesn’t stop until you are voted out or until your term expires.”
The historical record supports that position: 14 presidents have appointed 21 justices during presidential election years. A half-dozen presidents, classic lame ducks, filled Supreme Court seats even though their successors had been elected."
Republicans cited a 1992 speech by then-senator Joe Biden, arguing that if a Supreme Court seat became vacant during the summer, President Bush should wait until after the election to appoint a replacement, or else appoint a moderate acceptable to the then-Democratic Senate; Republicans termed this principle the "Biden rule". Biden responded that his position was, and remained, that the President and Congress should "work together to overcome partisan differences" regarding judicial nominations.