If they hold hearing for a 45 nominee before the election, they prove they were acting in bad faith. The expectation is that the president gets to appoint judges during his term, unless there is a reason to deny the nominee. By denying that they challenge the power of the executive branch. I.e. Does the president only get to pick a judge if the senate is a majority from the same party?

> Does the president only get to pick a judge if the senate is a majority from the same party?

This is the next logical step.

Who is paying attention to politics and thinks they are not acting in bad faith?

It's a bad faith enforcement of the constitution. In democracies like the US, precedents are as powerful as laws. This was not literally breaking any laws, but this was as bad as breaking a law.

Following the constitution is “bad faith”?

Doing things that are so obviously destructive to the whole institution of government that the Founders thought it wasn't worth writing down in the era of quill pens on sheepskins, because they couldn't imagine anyone being evil enough to do it? Yes, that's what bad faith is. It's things you can technically create a justification for that contradict all decency.

But they didn't follow it. They had no duty to consent, but they had a duty to advise, even if in the negative.

The Senate, not congress.

"[The president] shall nominate, and by and with the [...] Consent of the Senate, shall appoint [...] Judges of the supreme Court"

https://www.senate.gov/history/powers.htm

Yes and there is tons of case law on what the Senate actually needs to do and the result is "fuck all". The Federal government is designed to gridlock rather then forcing things to happen.

No, what happened is that Mitch McConnell refused to even allow a vote, and even Republican senators wouldn't have been able to vote for the centrist proposed by Obama.