The only vote that takes place is the cloture vote and they vote "For" the nominee.

for any of their nominees if they have the presidency and we have the Senatorial majority...it is over. No president will ever get a confirmation of judges without holding the Senate as well...not good for the country...but McConnell and his gang did it. Hope in 19, we get to block every Trump nominee and let the voters decide.

If the Democrats take control of the Senate in 2018, it will mean that at least three seats that previously were held by Republicans flipped to Democrats. There is no guarantee that those Democrats as well as some others, will vote no on a Supreme Court nomination -- remember, two Democrats voted yes for Gorsuch. I'm not blaming them or holding it against them -- it may just be the political reality they face having been elected in states that still trend red more than blue.

Reinstating the filibuster is an easy vote for them and it ensures that we can block any Trump SCOTUS nomination in the last two years of his term with as few as 41 votes.

only court junkies pay attention to that stuff...and everyone knows Garland was stolen...the conservadems have done fine this year...and are the best we can do. I like Manchin personally...seems like a good guy.

year....why do you do that? They have voted with the Dems this year period. Without a big tent and some moderates , we won't have a majority...without a majority, we get nothing done...and we lose things inch by inch...please stop.

Republican senators have proven that they will not let a Democrat seat new justices if they can help it.

If there's a new vacancy, and Mitch McConnell suddenly starts talking about installing a nominee we wanted, and they do it, that would prove they are willing to play by civilized rules again.

That's not gonna happen, though.

We would end up with a temporary filibuster that only hampered Democrats and vanished again if Republicans ever were back in control.

My proposal is that the Democrats, having regained (narrowly) control of the Senate in 2018, reinstate the filibuster rule for SCOTUS nominations. That allows us to block any Trump SCOTUS nominee during the last two years of his term with as little as 41 votes.

If, in 2020, we continue to hold the Senate and win the White House, we do exactly what the repubs did -- we get rid of the filibuster for SCOTUS nominations.

If we win the Senate but lose the White House (unlikely) we stand pat, knowing we can continue to block repub SCOTUS nominees with as few as 41 votes.

If we lose the Senate and win the White House (also unlikely), the repubs might leave things the way they are so they can filibuster our nominees or they might simply vote them down with their majority --either way they have the upper hand, no matter what we did during 2019-2020..

And if we lose the Senate and the White House, the repubs will leave things where they are today.

So, again, how does building in the ability to block Trump's SCOTUS nominees with only 41 votes "hamper" us?

I probably didn't read your OP carefully enough. To be clear I am not knocking you for laying out a pragmatic political approach to the Trump presidency as you outlined. I simply don't naturally think that way. I default to believing with a political system that either something makes sense or it doesn't, and therefor either it should be embraced or eliminated if the choice is ours to make. I like ideals that remain constant, so, for example, I hate when a political party is in favor of term limits when it is out of power, but opposed them when it is in power. Or when a political party believes in reducing deficits when out of power, but gladly increases them when it is in power. Or when it wants a balanced budget amendment when out of power, but opposes one when it is in power. The Republican Party has done all of the above, but it's not how I intuitively think.

Political reality. Just as it was political reality that led certain Democrats to vote for Gorsuch. Would Jones vote for a Trump nominee? I don't know -- and neither do any of us. It might depend on the nominee. But I think there is a pretty strong chance that there are 41 Democrats in the Senate that will vote against any Trump SCOTUS nominee and reinstating the filibuster would allow those nominee to be blocked without Jones -- or any other Democrat -- being put on the spot in an "up or down" vote.