I agree, it was wrong then, it is wrong now, the spot should be filled just like garland should have been confirmed as well. Im just here for the hypocrisy at this point, because all of you who are going to bat for a pre election confirmation were the exact ones making the case for the year long delay of garland, you are bad faith partisan actors and i will continue to call you out for it because you have no credibility to argue from on this.
I don't know that it's a 100% apples to apples comparison. Scalia passed in February 2016 which was early in the primary season so neither party had an official candidate. With Ginsburg, we are close enough to the election that some people have already voted.
As to when it becomes a decision for the current President and when does it become one for the winner of the next election? Just a rough guess but I think about 90 days is fair to select, vet, and vote on a nomination. 5 years ago, I would have thought differently but the current Senate Majority leader created a new precident and well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Also, to be fair, Supreme Court selections are overblown from a partisan standpoint. From a legal standpoint this represents the best of the best so in general they probably play to their nominating Presidents base a lot less than people think. Case in point, the two kinda swing vote justices right now are Roberts and Cavanaugh.