Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination; What About Garland; or, What Now?

I have been trying to decide what I think should happen regarding Trump's nominee for the vacant seat on the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch. There have been quite a few articles that have demonstrated that Mitch McConnel's assertion that a Presidential Supreme Court nominee has never been confirmed during an election year to be patently false. Like McConnel's pronouncement that he would resist Barrack Obama in 2008 in an attempt to make him a one term president, his assertion regarding Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland was equally self serving, obstructionist, and lacking in principal (except his principal of "My way or the highway".

Yet, if everyone took followed McConnel's way, there would never be workable government. His methods of obstructing everything which does not suite his purpose, or that of his party, are methods of gridlock and inaction.

But that, it seems, is what the Democratic base is calling for, and which Chuck Schumer appears intent on following. There was talk, albeit only a small amount, of bargaining with the Republicans, for a compromise to support Gorusch in exchange for a return to the 60-vote filibuster for all judicial appointments, which Harry Reid undid in 2013. But that talk was quickly silenced by Schumer's announcement of his intent to force McConnel to choose between the nuclear option (ending the 60-vote filibuster on SCOTUS nominees) or loosing Gorsusch.

First of all, I wouldn't sign any agreement with McConnel. He isn't to be trusted. When he needs to deliver something, in this case, Gorsuch, he will agree to anything then, and be happy to renege when he needs to deliver something else.

And what about obstruction?

Forget about obstruction. Here's a quote that tells me what the correct action should be on Gorsuch:

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, or a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

No less an expert than James Madison in Federalist, No. 47, points out that the tyranny is the accumulation of all power in the hands of one group. Currently the Republicans have control of both houses, the executive, and a majority of the state houses. And I agree with Madison that it smells like tyranny.

I stand with Schumer. Filibuster and Resist!