1. The composition of the court is being altered with this nomination. If the Senate had done its job and confirmed Garland, who was eminently qualified, then he would be a Supreme Court justice today. Trump is not replacing Scalia with Gorsuch; he is replacing Garland with Gorsuch.
2. Suppose the next justice dies within the year. Will you not be making precisely the same argument you are now, that Trump's nominee isn't so bad, and that if the Democrats use the filibuster, they risk losing it, and then they would have no power to block Trump's next nominee in the next three years?
3. I am not confusing anything. You're the one misinterpreting my argument. You are talking about the words in the Constitution. I am talking about its intent, which is what Republicans bring up every time they nominate an extreme conservative to the Supreme Court. The intent of the Constitution is that there are three separate branches of government. The Senate majority blocking the president's nominee until someone from their party is elected to the presidency makes the Supreme Court's makeup depend on the rogue party in the Senate and how far it is willing to go to subvert the system. This goes against the separation of powers.
4. Only a Republican would argue that what the Senate did with Garland was "advise and consent". They refused to hold hearings or even meet with Garland because they knew he was eminently qualified and there was nothing they could pick at to justify a vote against him. They had advocated Garland previously as an acceptable moderate pick by a Democratic president when the Senate was controlled by Democrats. They declared even before President Obama nominated Garland that they would oppose whomever he nominated. When it looked like HRC was about to win the presidency, they declared that they might keep the seat open for four more years. If you think that's "advise and consent", all I can say to you is, congratulations on having won the last election.
= new reply since forum marked as read