Democrats must filibuster any nominee who is not Merrick Garland.

[athena]

14. What makes you think they're more likely to get rid of the filibuster now than they would then?

No, when the next Supreme Court justice dies or retires, Trump will nominate another extreme conservative, and people like you will still be making the same argument, saying that it's too dangerous for the Democrats to use the filibuster.

The Constitution lays out a system of government with three separate branches. When the party that controls the Senate refuses to confirm the President's nominee to the Supreme Court, and leaves the seat empty until someone from their party wins the presidency through demogoguery and fearmongering, then that party is taking over the judicial branch. This is unconstitutional by definition. The intent of the Constitution, which the Republicans love so much to talk about, is that there be three separate but equal branches of government.

If one year is not too long to leave a Supreme Court seat empty, then neither is four years. And I do not accept replacing a Supreme Court justice who died well within the term of a Democratic president to be replaced by someone to the right of Samuel Elito.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/31/us/politics/trump-supreme-court-nominee.html