Democrats must filibuster any nominee who is not Merrick Garland.

[athena]

12. What use is a filibuster if you're afraid to use it?

If you don't use the filibuster out of fear of losing it, how is that different from not having it in the first place?

If the Democrats are afraid of taking a stand now, what makes you think they will not be afraid to take a stand the next time a Supreme Court seat becomes vacant? The filibuster will be just as vulnerable then, and the same arguments will be made then as you're making now.

I'm sorry, but I've heard this justification for far too long to believe it any longer. It is used every single time there is an opportunity for the Democrats in Congress to grow a spine.

ETA: The Constitution and precedent are more important than any temporary balance of the Supreme Court. If the Democrats do not stand up for the Constitution now, what is to prevent the Republicans from playing the same trick again, the next time a seat becomes vacant in a Democratic president's final year in office? FWIW, I believe this argument is so powerful that it is the only thing that will work. Every time a Republican talks about nominating Justices who respect the original intent of the Constitution, they should be asked about what the Constitution says about the nomination process for a Supreme Court justice.