Democrats must filibuster any nominee who is not Merrick Garland.

[tritsofme]

17. Utter bullshit. Your accusation is as ridiculous as your inability to distinguish what is required

by the Constitution and what is a norm. I'm not saying what they did with Garland was acceptable, they shattered norms and it has been highly destructive. However I do recognize that the Senate has very wide latitude to carry out it's advice and consent power. Your argument is with the Constitution, not me. The responsibility is on voters to impose a new majority that does not act in this fashion, the Constitution offers us no relief.

As to #2, I don't know how many times I can repeat myself. If the Kennedy/Ginsberg/Breyer/Sotomayor/Kagan seats come up next year, then I would support a filibuster. If the Thomas/Roberts/Alito seats came up, I would not.

As to #1, I agree with your sentiment, but this is not the real world. Woulda Coulda, Shoulda ect. However you want to shake it, filling the Scalia seat with Gorsuch and restoring the status quo ante would be far less significant and damaging to the law than Trump replacing Ginsberg. We would have zero options going into the Ginsberg vacancy with it already established that Democrats are irrelevant because we forced a doomed symbolic fight over Garland. Why not maximize the small leverage we have, instead of staging a tantrum?

Luckily, it appears that there will be enough Senate Democrats to provide cloture, and maintain our ability to fight a more significant vacancy.