Filibuster the Supreme Court for four years, because of same reasons conservatives used

Here’s Ted Cruz, arguing for an indefinite blockade of the Supreme Court when he thought the winner of the popular vote would actually be the winner:

There is certainly long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices. I would note, just recently, that Justice [Stephen] Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That’s a debate that we are going to have.

Heritage Foundation:

Dan Holler, Heritage Action’s vice president of communications and government relations, signaled that this year’s Republican blockade of President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, is just the beginning of a fight that could last the entire first term of a Clinton presidency. 

“You’ve seen John McCain and others talk about the need to not confirm any liberal nominated to the Supreme Court,” Holler said. “That’s exactly the right position to have.”

The National Review’s take: “On Judicial Nominations, Senators Are Meant to Advise, Not Rubber-Stamp.”

If Republicans want to kill the filibuster once and for all, that’s fine! They’ll call the shots independent of Democratic wishes. But as long as that tool remains available, there is zero reason for Democrats to surrender that seat. 

Republicans argued that the American people should determine the fate of that seat. The American people responded with majorities choosing Democrats for the presidency and Senate.

Our rigged system ignored the popular will. Democrats shouldn’t.