At this point, which of Trump's potential SCOTUS nominees would you confirm?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

At this point, I'm only comfortable saying I'd confirm Willett, Moreno, Kethledge, Eid, Colloton, and Canady. But I'd support holding hearings for any Trump nominee.

[RaphaelDLG]

What's the downside for the Democrats to automatically sinking anyone that's to the right of Garland as retaliation (and not signaling so until after the Senate rules are adopted for the term in January)? 

Republicans will go nuclear quickly, of course, and just appoint a nominee anyway, but..

I guess there are maybe two big downsides:
1) Republicans have a good chance of holding onto control of the Senate in 2018 and would then get rid of the filibuster on not just appointments but also legislation in Jan 2019
2) There is some asymmetry in how the Democratic base vs the Republican base reacts to brazen partisanship and such a move might tank the Democrats' popularity with base/swing voters.

[Cashew]

No Trump is a lame duck, Let the next president decide! There is nothing unprecedented about fewer justices.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

None and I'd oppose holding hearings or allowing a vote for any of them too (just like I would for anyone he nominates to any judgeship).

[SWE]

Nobody associated with the Rapist should be confirmed under any circumstances.

[ApatheticAustrian]

the democratic base obviously is clueless about the importance of the SC as 2016 has shown, so the Democrats should not block anyone and just let the hearings start.......practice is the best teacher.

[Person Man]

the democratic base obviously is clueless about the importance of the SC as 2016 has shown, so the Democrats should not block anyone and just let the hearings start.......practice is the best teacher.

You know that is too risky.
If they nuke us, when they screw up, they will wish they confirmed Garland.