Democrats must filibuster any nominee who is not Merrick Garland.

[tritsofme]

13. That's not my argument. I'm saying to use it when it is most effective.

And that would be when there is a vacancy from Ginsberg/Kennedy/Breyer. We only get one opportunity to filibuster, and trying to stop or at least delay a 30 year extremist reactionary majority is more important than blowing it on a symbolic protest in favor of Garland. It's actually possible that we could even sustain the filibuster for such a vacancy in a way that would be impossible for the Scalia seat. Either way, it would exact more of a political cost on the Republican majority.

Also, I don't really agree with some of what you said. McConnell shredded norms, but did not violate the Constitution. The Constitution says nothing about the nomination process, the Senate the sole determiner of its rules, and that includes how it considers (or does not consider) presidential nominees.

I think the precedent has already been set, if Democrats were to retake the Senate in 2018, and there was a vacancy from Ginsberg/Kennedy/Breyer, I wouldn't be opposed to a blockade until the next election under the "McConnell Rule."