On 11/4/26, someone reposted a FB post from “phoenixrisingdead”:
“REMEMBER THE MCCONNELL RULE
After the Democrats take control of the senate
tonight - AND THEY WILL - no Trump judicial
nominations can be confirmed.
Not for the supreme court.
Not for any federal bench.” 1/18

Among replies: “We don't need to do dirty deals like that. All we have to do is insist that the candidates answer every question and have a strong track record that is in line with the mainstream of America that threw out the radical authoritarians yesterday. If any of them 2/18

comes before the Judiciary Committee and says ‘I cannot comment on issues that might come before me on the bench,’ shut down the hearing and say, ‘Next candidate’. That is 100% within the Senate's role. In fact it is their RESPONSIBILITY to only approve people ... 3/18

who are highly qualified and highly likely to uphold the Constitution and rule of law. Bring on the hearings and make those nominees actually answer the questions in public under oath.”
First, the reposted item is wrong on a couple of points. “The McConnell Rule” is 4/18

not really a rule. In 2016, after Scalia, J, died, then-Sen Majority Leader McConnell “declared any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president [] elected later that year.” [FN1] 5/18

Then, in 2020, Justice Bader Ginsburg died 38 days before the 2020 election and McConnell did a 180 to help trump to shove Amy Barrett onto the SCOTUS bench in a flip of what McConnell previously had declared. [FN2] Another part of the original post that is not accurate: 6/18

The new Senate, with its Democratic Party majority, will not be sworn until January 3, 2027. [FN3] As to the confirmation process, there are many concerns about those who crave power. There is no statement that checks on power must be used politely and sparingly: 7/18

“The President shall ... nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the Supreme Court...” [FN4] Now-Justice Kagan discussed the ways in which nominees have to reply to questions about possible rulings. [FN5] 8/18

The check on a would-be authoritarian regime is in the United States Senate. To say “No!” to any trump nominee is valid. To argue about fitness because a nominee refuses to speculate about how she or he will rule on an issue ignores what The Federalist Society seeks. 9/18

We can be sure that future trump nominees to SCOTUS will be as transparent (not at all) and honest (count the spoons in that intellectual cupboard) as previous nominees. Justice Barrett is a good example and a reflection of the Pres who nominated her: 10/18

She’s hardly competent and, to be polite, was disingenuous in her answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee when she was nominated for the Seventh Circuit [FN6] and later to SCOTUS. [FN7] A valid course of action by the Senate is to block any and all trump nominees, while 11/18

investigating financial dealings of Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh (want a deal on Washington Nats season tickets?) Etc. Sen Jesse Helms set the nihilistic gop pattern decades ago as “Senator No.” They wanted to stall to impose authoritarian rule. We should use all peaceful means 12/18

as a check on despotism. The latter is consistent with what the Framers saw as the function of checks and balances. trump nominates with the “Advice and Consent” of the Senate. trump will not heed any Advice, consequently, the Senate must withhold its “Consent.” 13/18

Footnotes:
FN1. Ron Elving,”What Happened With Merrick Garland In 2016 And Why It Matters Now,” npr, 6/29/18, accessed 11/5/26.
FN2. Barbara Sprunt, “How Amy Coney Barrett's Confirmation Would Compare To Past Supreme Court Picks,” npr, 10/1/20, accessed 11/5/26. 14/18

FN3. “When Does the New Congress Start?” Congress Countdown, accessed 11/5/26.
FN4. Const. Art. II, sec 2.
FN5. Elena Kagan, “The University of Chicago Law Review, Confirmation Messes, Old and New,” U Chi L Rev, Spring 1995. 15/18

FN6. She was surprised: she taught classes in five different summer sessions for the Alliance Defending Freedom, an anti-LGBTQ group, but didn’t know the Southern Poverty Law Center called it a hate group for supporting recriminalization of homosexuality 16/18

FN6a. in the United States.” Stephanie Mencimer, “Did Amy Coney Barrett Lie to Congress in 2017 or Is She Just Clueless?” Mother Jones, 10/12/20, accessed 11/5/26.
FN7. Barrett described “‘super-precedents’” that cannot be overturned such as Brown v Bd of 17/18

FN7a. Education I, but did not include Roe because there continues to be litigation on the issue. Deirdre Walsh, “Takeaways From Amy Coney Barrett's Judiciary Confirmation Hearings,” npr, 10/15/20, accessed 11/5/26. 18/18