This is not quite accurate.
The "other side" stated that they would not like anyone to be nominated before midterms, an assertion that the republicucks went with regarding Garland. So, in a sense, they just wanted the republicucks to live up to their own bullshit. (Which, of course, was too much to ask...)
Once that was settled, by the republicuck's own actions, then became the questions of character of the nominee... (It's truly funny how hypocritical they have shown themselves to be during this whole process, though not surprising at all...)
I mean, sure, if you can't separate those issues, one might think they are the same, but let's not be disingenuous about the whole deal. They created the precedent with Garland, so one might be led to believe that they would live up to their own standards, but that would be too much to ask.
But to say that they would have "smeared" any nomination because of their own hypocrisy isn't the case, but it makes a good strawman.
If the r-cucks cared anything at all about the quality of their nominee, they obviously wouldn't have jammed this guy through, and would have let the libcucjs prove their hypothesis, and withdrawn, and nominated someone without so much bullshit surrounding them, thereby proving their point.
But alas, we are not a nation of honor after all.