Is it hypocritical to argue against a second term president nominating a SC appointee when Reagan did it in 1987?

Nobody is arguing against a second term president nominating a SC appointee. People are arguing against a second term president making a SC appointment IN AN ELECTION YEAR. Which Reagan, you will notice, did not do. If you are confused about it, just read Biden's comments on the subject.

In the last 104 years, six Supreme Court appointees have been appointed in the last year of a president's term.

Moreover, the wording of Article II, Section 2 of the constitution make it a duty for the Senate to consider any nominee the sitting president puts forward. But, the majority of this Congress has shown all along that it is not interested in doing its duty.

Arguing against it is exactly what the Democrats did back then. Yes it's hypocritical that they are taking the other stand now.

No, it isn't. Where on Earth does it say circumstances have to play out the exact same way every single time? If that were the case, we wouldn't need representation now, would we? And as libbies love to say ... that was then, this is now.

You're forgetting that everything Obama touches turns to crap, so there's that.

Of course. But partisan politics has no morals.

It is unconstitutional. The Constitution requires this of the President.

Nope, it is typical partisan politics.

Both parties do this.

Democrats have done it time after time... why do you think it is wrong now?