SCOTUS-Watch: It's Gorsuch!

[emailking]

2 questions:

1) If the Dems filibuster and Turtle McConnel kills the filibuster...does that mean the filibuster is really dead forever or can it just be bought back in the future with a rule change?

It can be brought back but it would be unlikely to happen anytime soon.. Democrats will retaliate when they have the Presidency and Senate again. Knowing that, there's no reason for the Republicans to bring it back in the meantime.

2) Let's say the Dems give Gorsuch a fair hearing and he fails to clear the 60 vote threshold...can the GOP just ram him through anyway?

Yeah. The nomination is still valid until they vote it down. So they can just change the rules then to allow the vote on the nomination.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

2 questions:

1) If the Dems filibuster and Turtle McConnel kills the filibuster...does that mean the filibuster is really dead forever or can it just be bought back in the future with a rule change?
2) Let's say the Dems give Gorsuch a fair hearing and he fails to clear the 60 vote threshold...can the GOP just ram him through anyway?

1 -  It can be brought back, but who would want to limit their own power by doing so?

2 - Yes, until the nominee is given an up or down vote on confirmation, the nominee has not been confirmed or rejected and therefore multiple votes can occur on cloture until it is achieved, one way or another.

[Vcrew192]

I like Gorsuch; I prefer conservative constructionists on the Court who will limit Roe and be generally pro-business. But I don't like the Muslim ban EO and I don't like how the Garland process played out. So I'd vote yes to filibuster but I'd also vote yes on final confirmation.

Why filibuster if you support the candidate? Just for the sake of inefficiency. This is the stubborn mentality that is polarizing our politics so egregiously. I don't like that Garland got axed either and I have plenty of problems with Trump's cabinet but democrats boycotting committee hearings is just stupid.

[The Other Castro]

Gorsuch says his first call after the nomination was to Merrick Garland out of respect.

[Dr. Arch]

This is an unprecedented steal for a seat in the Supreme Court. I have no reason to respect such actions. They could have given Garland a hearing AT LEAST, but no. They knew he was qualified so they just blocked him until their party could get their nominee in.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

So this has been making its rounds lately.

[Pandaguineapig]

This is an unprecedented steal for a seat in the Supreme Court. I have no reason to respect such actions. They could have given Garland a hearing AT LEAST, but no. They knew he was qualified so they just blocked him until their party could get their nominee in.

Payback for Bork sure was sweet

[SteveRogers]

This is an unprecedented steal for a seat in the Supreme Court. I have no reason to respect such actions. They could have given Garland a hearing AT LEAST, but no. They knew he was qualified so they just blocked him until their party could get their nominee in.

Payback for Bork sure was sweet

What does any of this have to do with Bork? When the other party controls the senate, the president doesn't always get his first choice.

[Pandaguineapig]

This is an unprecedented steal for a seat in the Supreme Court. I have no reason to respect such actions. They could have given Garland a hearing AT LEAST, but no. They knew he was qualified so they just blocked him until their party could get their nominee in.

Payback for Bork sure was sweet

What does any of this have to do with Bork? When the other party controls the senate, the president doesn't always get his first choice.

Many of the biggest whiners in the Senate about the supreme court are people like Harry Reid, and Patrick Leahy who slandered Bork for political reasons. Getting screwed over on a pick was overdue justice

[Virginiá]

Many of the biggest whiners in the Senate about the supreme court are people like Harry Reid, and Patrick Leahy who slandered Bork for political reasons. Getting screwed over on a pick was overdue justice

You think rejecting Reagan's pick and forcing another was grounds for outright rejecting any pick from Obama, just so they could fill the seat themselves? Don't you have any idea of proportional response? Democrats forced a moderate back then, and this time Obama didn't even give Republicans a chance to reject a liberal pick. He just went right to a moderate, and your party still stole it.

You can try and pull all these flimsy historical arguments out of your butt all day if you want, but it's never going to justify what Mitch did. Escalating judicial battles like this is crazy and frankly, strategically unwise, because your party will not always hold all the cards, and I doubt Democrats are going to forget this in the future.

[Orser67]

This is an unprecedented steal for a seat in the Supreme Court. I have no reason to respect such actions. They could have given Garland a hearing AT LEAST, but no. They knew he was qualified so they just blocked him until their party could get their nominee in.

Payback for Bork sure was sweet

What does any of this have to do with Bork? When the other party controls the senate, the president doesn't always get his first choice.

Many of the biggest whiners in the Senate about the supreme court are people like Harry Reid, and Patrick Leahy who slandered Bork for political reasons. Getting screwed over on a pick was overdue justice

Well, Republicans did get Anthony Kennedy

[SteveRogers]

This is an unprecedented steal for a seat in the Supreme Court. I have no reason to respect such actions. They could have given Garland a hearing AT LEAST, but no. They knew he was qualified so they just blocked him until their party could get their nominee in.

Payback for Bork sure was sweet

What does any of this have to do with Bork? When the other party controls the senate, the president doesn't always get his first choice.

Many of the biggest whiners in the Senate about the supreme court are people like Harry Reid, and Patrick Leahy who slandered Bork for political reasons. Getting screwed over on a pick was overdue justice

Not even a little bit the same thing.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Tactically, it would be best to reserve the filibuster for someone who has more than ideology as a problem.  To have any hope that a filibuster will be sustained in the current Congress will require some Republicans to be uneasy about the candidate and wanting to have the filibuster as cover so that they can vote for the candidate (i.e. vote for cloture) secure in the knowledge that the candidate won't actually be voted on.

[Cubby]

Can anyone tell me why Kelly Ayotte was in videos today of Gorsuch being introduced on Capitol Hill? She was right next to him and Cory Gardner. I thought she lost re-election.

[The Other Castro]

Can anyone tell me why Kelly Ayotte was in videos today of Gorsuch being introduced on Capitol Hill? She was right next to him and Cory Gardner. I thought she lost re-election.

Trump picked her to be his SCOTUS sherpa. She'll be helping Gorsuch through the confirmation process.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

WTF

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Daily Mail

[Cubby]

Can anyone tell me why Kelly Ayotte was in videos today of Gorsuch being introduced on Capitol Hill? She was right next to him and Cory Gardner. I thought she lost re-election.

Trump picked her to be his SCOTUS sherpa. She'll be helping Gorsuch through the confirmation process.

Okay, thanks!

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

WTF

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Daily Mail

Oh it's real, it's just hilarious that someone would not get the joke and freak out about this.

[Klartext89]

This is an unprecedented steal for a seat in the Supreme Court. I have no reason to respect such actions. They could have given Garland a hearing AT LEAST, but no. They knew he was qualified so they just blocked him until their party could get their nominee in.

Payback for Bork sure was sweet

What does any of this have to do with Bork? When the other party controls the senate, the president doesn't always get his first choice.

Many of the biggest whiners in the Senate about the supreme court are people like Harry Reid, and Patrick Leahy who slandered Bork for political reasons. Getting screwed over on a pick was overdue justice

Well, Republicans did get Anthony Kennedy

What is like hoping for a railway set and getting one lone train on Christmas...

[Klartext89]

This is an unprecedented steal for a seat in the Supreme Court. I have no reason to respect such actions. They could have given Garland a hearing AT LEAST, but no. They knew he was qualified so they just blocked him until their party could get their nominee in.

Payback for Bork sure was sweet

What does any of this have to do with Bork? When the other party controls the senate, the president doesn't always get his first choice.

Many of the biggest whiners in the Senate about the supreme court are people like Harry Reid, and Patrick Leahy who slandered Bork for political reasons. Getting screwed over on a pick was overdue justice

Not even a little bit the same thing.

It's EXACTLY the same thing, but as always it's ok for Leftists, if they do it cause the have "moral reasons" and if it is done to them it is "shameful". Hypocrisy at an unbelieveable level. If you don't want to be treated unfairly, then don't treat the other side unfairly if you are in charge. Very easy.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is an unprecedented steal for a seat in the Supreme Court. I have no reason to respect such actions. They could have given Garland a hearing AT LEAST, but no. They knew he was qualified so they just blocked him until their party could get their nominee in.

Payback for Bork sure was sweet

What does any of this have to do with Bork? When the other party controls the senate, the president doesn't always get his first choice.

Many of the biggest whiners in the Senate about the supreme court are people like Harry Reid, and Patrick Leahy who slandered Bork for political reasons. Getting screwed over on a pick was overdue justice

Not even a little bit the same thing.

It's EXACTLY the same thing, but as always it's ok for Leftists, if they do it cause the have "moral reasons" and if it is done to them it is "shameful". Hypocrisy at an unbelieveable level. If you don't want to be treated unfairly, then don't treat the other side unfairly if you are in charge. Very easy.

Therein lies the point.

The simple fact of the matter is we are heading towards greater polarization and that is especially true over Supreme Court nominees. Since the 1980's, Republicans have been aiming for a anti-Roe Majority. Since the late 1980's, Democrats have been keen to prevent this especially after Rehnquist/Scalia double appointment in 1986, there was a keen awareness that the next justice was decisive.

So Ted Kennedy, Biden and the like developed the "Borking" strategy. They took down Bork, and forced Reagan to appoint a wildcard on the issue. Republicans saw this as an affront to tradition. The President was suppose to nominate, and the Senate was suppose to confirm as long as they were qualified. There weren't suppose to be litmus tests and there weren't suppose to be the kind of character assassination that was occurring over these nominees like Bork and later with Thomas in their view.

That is why the Republicans for two decades tried to own the higher ground, by "opposing litmus tests" like Bush did in 2000 and voting to confirm nominees like RBG with wide margins. But it meant nothing, these were naive attempts to paper over the reality that Democrats were more committed to saving Roe than Republicans were at overturning it. So there was no deference. Daschle and later Reid blocked dozens of lower count appointees leaving Obama with a hefty backlog when he took office (the root cause of Obama's transforming the judicial branch lauded in an article last year before Scalia died, was directly because Democrats Garland the lower courts under Bush, especially after 2006). To a Republican, Democrats broke the rules in 1986, in 1991 and again in 2001-2008.

It didn't matter that they tried to play by the rules in the 1990's in the hopes that Democrats would return the favor. They still acted ridiculously with Bush and after Roberts and Alito was confirmed, Hillary went around saying they had bamboozled the Senate and outright lied their way onto the court. Bush won 51% of the vote, had 55 Senate seats and yet there was no sense of deference, the successful appointment of two pro-life Justices was in the eyes of Democrats, a con job.  Democrats get liberals and Republicans have to settle for moderates or it is corrupt. This plays into the narrative that "Democrats always get their way while Republicans have to take it in the chin", Ted Cruz narrative. Going further from a Republican perspective, they see Democrats as willing to go to any means necessary because in their minds it is for the cause, however noble it may be, but since Republicans are either crooked or ignorant if they go to excess in pursuit of something, it is evil.

If you go back to the statement by Biden, yes indeed he was thinking as he was speaking. But that misses the underlying point, that in 1992 Biden was not going to let Republicans secure the 4th seat or worse gain a 5th anti-Roe seat with Bill Clinton looking likely to be President. By 2016, with the establishment in ruins, no one cared to keep up appearances or play by old rules. It was either a far right movement guy like Cruz or shoot from the hip populist like Trump, war had been going on for decades and they were going to fight back. Thus very few paid lip services to avoiding litmus tests like Bush did in 2000. Most of the leading contenders pledged to appoint solid pro-life judges

I was fine with Garland, especially because it was probably the best we could get out of Obama. However, I am glad that it worked out in a way so as to keep this seat in the hands of a Conservative as it has been for 80 years and also preserving that 4th pro-life seat, to ensure at the very least that late-term abortion remains banned.

It is not the way I would have preferred it to come about, but at the same time Merkley is wrong. Despite what one thinks of Trump, he was elected in the manner proscribed by the Constitution. The evidence of involvement by foreign gov'ts to my knowledge extends only to spread of information both true and false around the internet. Democracy depends on voters being able to take information and judge for themselves what the best course is and therefore is inherently based on a sense of faith in people to make the right decisions. That doesn't change because of who is waving said information in their face. Continuing in this line of thought, the constitution affords him the right to make an appointment to a vacant seat, regardless of the circumstances that produced it. He is President, the seat is vacant, he makes an appointment.

Just like in 1968 when Earl Warren purposely retired before the elections to ensure that LBJ would name his successor and not Richard Nixon, whom he despised. This led to the nomination of Fortas who was filibustered until it was forced to be withdrawn. During the process, the first of his scandals came to light, but the origin of filibuster was anger at the political relationship between LBJ and Fortas (which was inappropriate and a violation of separation of powers) and also the rulings of the Warren Court. So inherently politicization of the process by both sides. The end result was that there was not time to name another replacement, and Nixon ended up appointing Warren Burger, who was followed by Reagan's selection of William Rehnquist and then Bush's selection of John Roberts, who at 62, is expected to remain on the court until the 2030's. Considering how that originated, is the Chief Justice a stolen seat? Liberals have not held it since and Democrats have not held it since 1953 and that is largely because of what happened in 1968.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This is an unprecedented steal for a seat in the Supreme Court. I have no reason to respect such actions. They could have given Garland a hearing AT LEAST, but no. They knew he was qualified so they just blocked him until their party could get their nominee in.

Payback for Bork sure was sweet

What does any of this have to do with Bork? When the other party controls the senate, the president doesn't always get his first choice.

Many of the biggest whiners in the Senate about the supreme court are people like Harry Reid, and Patrick Leahy who slandered Bork for political reasons. Getting screwed over on a pick was overdue justice

Not even a little bit the same thing.

It's EXACTLY the same thing, but as always it's ok for Leftists, if they do it cause the have "moral reasons" and if it is done to them it is "shameful". Hypocrisy at an unbelieveable level. If you don't want to be treated unfairly, then don't treat the other side unfairly if you are in charge. Very easy.

Therein lies the point.

The simple fact of the matter is we are heading towards greater polarization and that is especially true over Supreme Court nominees. Since the 1980's, Republicans have been aiming for a anti-Roe Majority. Since the late 1980's, Democrats have been keen to prevent this especially after Rehnquist/Scalia double appointment in 1986, there was a keen awareness that the next justice was decisive.

So Ted Kennedy, Biden and the like developed the "Borking" strategy. They took down Bork, and forced Reagan to appoint a wildcard on the issue. Republicans saw this as an affront to tradition. The President was suppose to nominate, and the Senate was suppose to confirm as long as they were qualified. There weren't suppose to be litmus tests and there weren't suppose to be the kind of character assassination that was occurring over these nominees like Bork and later with Thomas in their view.

That is why the Republicans for two decades tried to own the higher ground, by "opposing litmus tests" like Bush did in 2000 and voting to confirm nominees like RBG with wide margins. But it meant nothing, these were naive attempts to paper over the reality that Democrats were more committed to saving Roe than Republicans were at overturning it. So there was no deference. Daschle and later Reid blocked dozens of lower count appointees leaving Obama with a hefty backlog when he took office (the root cause of Obama's transforming the judicial branch lauded in an article last year before Scalia died, was directly because Democrats Garland the lower courts under Bush, especially after 2006). To a Republican, Democrats broke the rules in 1986, in 1991 and again in 2001-2008.

It didn't matter that they tried to play by the rules in the 1990's in the hopes that Democrats would return the favor. They still acted ridiculously with Bush and after Roberts and Alito was confirmed, Hillary went around saying they had bamboozled the Senate and outright lied their way onto the court. Bush won 51% of the vote, had 55 Senate seats and yet there was no sense of deference, the successful appointment of two pro-life Justices was in the eyes of Democrats, a con job.  Democrats get liberals and Republicans have to settle for moderates or it is corrupt. This plays into the narrative that "Democrats always get their way while Republicans have to take it in the chin", Ted Cruz narrative. Going further from a Republican perspective, they see Democrats as willing to go to any means necessary because in their mines it is for the cause, however noble it may be, but since Republicans are either crooked or ignorant if they go to excess in pursuit of something, it is evil.

If you go back to the statement by Biden, yes indeed he was thinking as he was speaking. But that misses the underlying point, that in 1992 Biden was not going to let Republicans secure the 4th seat or worse gain a 5th anti-Roe seat with Bill Clinton looking likely to be President. By 2016, with the establishment in ruins, no one cared to keep up appearances or play by old rules. It was either a far right movement guy like Cruz or shoot from the hip populist like Trump, war had been going on for decades and they were going to fight back. Thus very few paid lib services to avoiding litmus tests like Bush did in 2000. Most of the leading contenders pledged to appoint solid pro-life judges

I was fine with Garland, especially because it was probably the best we could get out of Obama. However, I am glad that it worked out in a way so as to keep this seat in the hands of a Conservative as it has been for 80 years and also preserving that 4th pro-life seat, to ensure at the very least that late-term abortion remains banned.

It is not the way I would have preferred it to come about, but at the same time Merkley is wrong. Despite what one thinks of Trump, he was elected in the manner proscribed by the Constitution. The evidence of involvement by foreign gov'ts to my knowledge extends only to spread of information both true and false around the internet. Democracy depends on voters being able to take information and judge for themselves what the best course is and therefore is inherently based on a sense of faith in people to make the right decisions. That doesn't change because of who is waving said information in their face. Continuing in this line of thought, the constitution affords him the right to make an appointment to a vacant seat, regardless of the circumstances that produced it. He is President, the seat is vacant, he makes an appointment.

Just like in 1968 when Earl Warren purposely retired before the elections to ensure that LBJ would name his successor and not Richard Nixon, whom he despised. This led to the nomination of Fortas who was filibustered until it was forced to be withdrawn. During the process, the first of his scandals came to light, but the origin of filibuster was anger at the political relationship between LBJ and Fortas (which was inappropriate and a violation of separation of powers) and also the rulings of the Warren Court. So inherently politicization of the process by both sides. The end result was that there was not time to name another replacement, and Nixon ended up appointing Warren Burger, who was followed by Reagan's selection of William Rehnquist and then Bush's selection of John Roberts, who at 62, is expected to remain on the court until the 2030's. Considering how that originated, is the Chief Justice a stolen seat? Liberals have not held it since and Democrats have not held it since 1953 and that is largely because of what happened in 1968.

What happened with Clarence Thomas wasn't character assassination, the man had a history of sexually harassing women and it's a disgrace that he was confirmed.

[Klartext89]

This is an unprecedented steal for a seat in the Supreme Court. I have no reason to respect such actions. They could have given Garland a hearing AT LEAST, but no. They knew he was qualified so they just blocked him until their party could get their nominee in.

Payback for Bork sure was sweet

What does any of this have to do with Bork? When the other party controls the senate, the president doesn't always get his first choice.

Many of the biggest whiners in the Senate about the supreme court are people like Harry Reid, and Patrick Leahy who slandered Bork for political reasons. Getting screwed over on a pick was overdue justice

Not even a little bit the same thing.

It's EXACTLY the same thing, but as always it's ok for Leftists, if they do it cause the have "moral reasons" and if it is done to them it is "shameful". Hypocrisy at an unbelieveable level. If you don't want to be treated unfairly, then don't treat the other side unfairly if you are in charge. Very easy.

Therein lies the point.

The simple fact of the matter is we are heading towards greater polarization and that is especially true over Supreme Court nominees. Since the 1980's, Republicans have been aiming for a anti-Roe Majority. Since the late 1980's, Democrats have been keen to prevent this especially after Rehnquist/Scalia double appointment in 1986, there was a keen awareness that the next justice was decisive.

So Ted Kennedy, Biden and the like developed the "Borking" strategy. They took down Bork, and forced Reagan to appoint a wildcard on the issue. Republicans saw this as an affront to tradition. The President was suppose to nominate, and the Senate was suppose to confirm as long as they were qualified. There weren't suppose to be litmus tests and there weren't suppose to be the kind of character assassination that was occurring over these nominees like Bork and later with Thomas in their view.

That is why the Republicans for two decades tried to own the higher ground, by "opposing litmus tests" like Bush did in 2000 and voting to confirm nominees like RBG with wide margins. But it meant nothing, these were naive attempts to paper over the reality that Democrats were more committed to saving Roe than Republicans were at overturning it. So there was no deference. Daschle and later Reid blocked dozens of lower count appointees leaving Obama with a hefty backlog when he took office (the root cause of Obama's transforming the judicial branch lauded in an article last year before Scalia died, was directly because Democrats Garland the lower courts under Bush, especially after 2006). To a Republican, Democrats broke the rules in 1986, in 1991 and again in 2001-2008.

It didn't matter that they tried to play by the rules in the 1990's in the hopes that Democrats would return the favor. They still acted ridiculously with Bush and after Roberts and Alito was confirmed, Hillary went around saying they had bamboozled the Senate and outright lied their way onto the court. Bush won 51% of the vote, had 55 Senate seats and yet there was no sense of deference, the successful appointment of two pro-life Justices was in the eyes of Democrats, a con job.  Democrats get liberals and Republicans have to settle for moderates or it is corrupt. This plays into the narrative that "Democrats always get their way while Republicans have to take it in the chin", Ted Cruz narrative. Going further from a Republican perspective, they see Democrats as willing to go to any means necessary because in their mines it is for the cause, however noble it may be, but since Republicans are either crooked or ignorant if they go to excess in pursuit of something, it is evil.

If you go back to the statement by Biden, yes indeed he was thinking as he was speaking. But that misses the underlying point, that in 1992 Biden was not going to let Republicans secure the 4th seat or worse gain a 5th anti-Roe seat with Bill Clinton looking likely to be President. By 2016, with the establishment in ruins, no one cared to keep up appearances or play by old rules. It was either a far right movement guy like Cruz or shoot from the hip populist like Trump, war had been going on for decades and they were going to fight back. Thus very few paid lib services to avoiding litmus tests like Bush did in 2000. Most of the leading contenders pledged to appoint solid pro-life judges

I was fine with Garland, especially because it was probably the best we could get out of Obama. However, I am glad that it worked out in a way so as to keep this seat in the hands of a Conservative as it has been for 80 years and also preserving that 4th pro-life seat, to ensure at the very least that late-term abortion remains banned.

It is not the way I would have preferred it to come about, but at the same time Merkley is wrong. Despite what one thinks of Trump, he was elected in the manner proscribed by the Constitution. The evidence of involvement by foreign gov'ts to my knowledge extends only to spread of information both true and false around the internet. Democracy depends on voters being able to take information and judge for themselves what the best course is and therefore is inherently based on a sense of faith in people to make the right decisions. That doesn't change because of who is waving said information in their face. Continuing in this line of thought, the constitution affords him the right to make an appointment to a vacant seat, regardless of the circumstances that produced it. He is President, the seat is vacant, he makes an appointment.

Just like in 1968 when Earl Warren purposely retired before the elections to ensure that LBJ would name his successor and not Richard Nixon, whom he despised. This led to the nomination of Fortas who was filibustered until it was forced to be withdrawn. During the process, the first of his scandals came to light, but the origin of filibuster was anger at the political relationship between LBJ and Fortas (which was inappropriate and a violation of separation of powers) and also the rulings of the Warren Court. So inherently politicization of the process by both sides. The end result was that there was not time to name another replacement, and Nixon ended up appointing Warren Burger, who was followed by Reagan's selection of William Rehnquist and then Bush's selection of John Roberts, who at 62, is expected to remain on the court until the 2030's. Considering how that originated, is the Chief Justice a stolen seat? Liberals have not held it since and Democrats have not held it since 1953 and that is largely because of what happened in 1968.

What happened with Clarence Thomas wasn't character assassination, the man had a history of sexually harassing women and it's a disgrace that he was confirmed.

have you ever heard of Bill Clinton?

President North Carolina Yankee, THANK YOU! The text is amazing, never seen so much truth in any posting anywhere.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

WTF

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Daily Mail

According to the Mail it was just a satire club to get some librul tears from his leftist teachers and classmates

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is an unprecedented steal for a seat in the Supreme Court. I have no reason to respect such actions. They could have given Garland a hearing AT LEAST, but no. They knew he was qualified so they just blocked him until their party could get their nominee in.

Payback for Bork sure was sweet

What does any of this have to do with Bork? When the other party controls the senate, the president doesn't always get his first choice.

Many of the biggest whiners in the Senate about the supreme court are people like Harry Reid, and Patrick Leahy who slandered Bork for political reasons. Getting screwed over on a pick was overdue justice

Not even a little bit the same thing.

It's EXACTLY the same thing, but as always it's ok for Leftists, if they do it cause the have "moral reasons" and if it is done to them it is "shameful". Hypocrisy at an unbelieveable level. If you don't want to be treated unfairly, then don't treat the other side unfairly if you are in charge. Very easy.

Therein lies the point.

The simple fact of the matter is we are heading towards greater polarization and that is especially true over Supreme Court nominees. Since the 1980's, Republicans have been aiming for a anti-Roe Majority. Since the late 1980's, Democrats have been keen to prevent this especially after Rehnquist/Scalia double appointment in 1986, there was a keen awareness that the next justice was decisive.

So Ted Kennedy, Biden and the like developed the "Borking" strategy. They took down Bork, and forced Reagan to appoint a wildcard on the issue. Republicans saw this as an affront to tradition. The President was suppose to nominate, and the Senate was suppose to confirm as long as they were qualified. There weren't suppose to be litmus tests and there weren't suppose to be the kind of character assassination that was occurring over these nominees like Bork and later with Thomas in their view.

That is why the Republicans for two decades tried to own the higher ground, by "opposing litmus tests" like Bush did in 2000 and voting to confirm nominees like RBG with wide margins. But it meant nothing, these were naive attempts to paper over the reality that Democrats were more committed to saving Roe than Republicans were at overturning it. So there was no deference. Daschle and later Reid blocked dozens of lower count appointees leaving Obama with a hefty backlog when he took office (the root cause of Obama's transforming the judicial branch lauded in an article last year before Scalia died, was directly because Democrats Garland the lower courts under Bush, especially after 2006). To a Republican, Democrats broke the rules in 1986, in 1991 and again in 2001-2008.

It didn't matter that they tried to play by the rules in the 1990's in the hopes that Democrats would return the favor. They still acted ridiculously with Bush and after Roberts and Alito was confirmed, Hillary went around saying they had bamboozled the Senate and outright lied their way onto the court. Bush won 51% of the vote, had 55 Senate seats and yet there was no sense of deference, the successful appointment of two pro-life Justices was in the eyes of Democrats, a con job.  Democrats get liberals and Republicans have to settle for moderates or it is corrupt. This plays into the narrative that "Democrats always get their way while Republicans have to take it in the chin", Ted Cruz narrative. Going further from a Republican perspective, they see Democrats as willing to go to any means necessary because in their mines it is for the cause, however noble it may be, but since Republicans are either crooked or ignorant if they go to excess in pursuit of something, it is evil.

If you go back to the statement by Biden, yes indeed he was thinking as he was speaking. But that misses the underlying point, that in 1992 Biden was not going to let Republicans secure the 4th seat or worse gain a 5th anti-Roe seat with Bill Clinton looking likely to be President. By 2016, with the establishment in ruins, no one cared to keep up appearances or play by old rules. It was either a far right movement guy like Cruz or shoot from the hip populist like Trump, war had been going on for decades and they were going to fight back. Thus very few paid lib services to avoiding litmus tests like Bush did in 2000. Most of the leading contenders pledged to appoint solid pro-life judges

I was fine with Garland, especially because it was probably the best we could get out of Obama. However, I am glad that it worked out in a way so as to keep this seat in the hands of a Conservative as it has been for 80 years and also preserving that 4th pro-life seat, to ensure at the very least that late-term abortion remains banned.

It is not the way I would have preferred it to come about, but at the same time Merkley is wrong. Despite what one thinks of Trump, he was elected in the manner proscribed by the Constitution. The evidence of involvement by foreign gov'ts to my knowledge extends only to spread of information both true and false around the internet. Democracy depends on voters being able to take information and judge for themselves what the best course is and therefore is inherently based on a sense of faith in people to make the right decisions. That doesn't change because of who is waving said information in their face. Continuing in this line of thought, the constitution affords him the right to make an appointment to a vacant seat, regardless of the circumstances that produced it. He is President, the seat is vacant, he makes an appointment.

Just like in 1968 when Earl Warren purposely retired before the elections to ensure that LBJ would name his successor and not Richard Nixon, whom he despised. This led to the nomination of Fortas who was filibustered until it was forced to be withdrawn. During the process, the first of his scandals came to light, but the origin of filibuster was anger at the political relationship between LBJ and Fortas (which was inappropriate and a violation of separation of powers) and also the rulings of the Warren Court. So inherently politicization of the process by both sides. The end result was that there was not time to name another replacement, and Nixon ended up appointing Warren Burger, who was followed by Reagan's selection of William Rehnquist and then Bush's selection of John Roberts, who at 62, is expected to remain on the court until the 2030's. Considering how that originated, is the Chief Justice a stolen seat? Liberals have not held it since and Democrats have not held it since 1953 and that is largely because of what happened in 1968.

What happened with Clarence Thomas wasn't character assassination, the man had a history of sexually harassing women and it's a disgrace that he was confirmed.

It was a long post. I actually stopped for an hour two and came back. I bolded the words you missed. It is a matter of perspective and my attempt was to give the traditional Republican perspective, parts of which I don't necessarily agree with.