Iggy has had a series of very good posts on the subject. You really ought to read them all, but I’m not going to take the time to link them all for you when just one will suffice:
As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, you are not entitled to your own facts.
The Senate refusing to even take a vote on a SCOTUS nominee is not unprecedented. Three times the Senate treated nominees by Millard Fillmore in such fashion.
Tyler had such trouble getting his nominees through that he resorted to re-nominating a candidate, Reuben Walworth, whose prior nomination had been dealt with in the Seante by tabling the matter and never getting and up or down vote. When Tyler again nominated Walworth the Senate just ignored the nomination, not even a vote to table.
A majority of the unsuccessful nominations to the high court never got an up or down vote in the Senate. Their nominations failed for a variety of reasons, including inaction by the Senate.
Just go read this thread. Page three post #149 is where names and dates of such ill treated nominees are laid out.
We keep going back to this so often that we need a damn Sticky. Garland was, IMHO, treated in a shitty manner. But it was not unprecedented that the Senate did not vote on his nomination. Amazingly enough politicians have been doing shitty things for a very long time. The present set of Senators are just recycling ideas that have been used before.