Anything that any liberal does anywhere means that the entire Left does it.
Who said anything about likelihood? 
Such point as I had was that that would at least involve taking a stand on the Constitution, which is within the purview of a Supreme Court Justice, rather than the internal rules of the Senate, which are not.
What, you’ve never thrown around ridiculous but entertaining ideas in a bull session?
That’s right, you’re way too Serious to do anything like that. 
Yes, the platform of the Democratic Party, or the Green Party, or whatever the Bernie Party is. It’s easy to paint the other side of the country as unreasonable when you assign every thing anyone on the internet says as being “the left” or “the right”. We have a choice in this country at this time, we can be on the side of divisiveness and be part of making things worse, or we can be trying to make things better. This is a tangent though, so I’m happy to drop it.
That’s literally the job description of “Supreme Court Justice.”
The OP’s proposal strikes me as a band-aid on the gaping wound of toxic two-party politics. I’d recommend instead changing voting procedures at the local and state level to gradually open the door to third parties, to eventually create compromise-coalitions that (hopefully) better represent the will of the people.
No his job is to apply the constitution.
His is not the first quixotic vision of a future seat for Merrick Garland I have heard.
Yes, “the left.”
It has happened. There have been nominees who declined the nomination and even one who was confirmed by the Senate but refused to take the position.
John Jay (who had previously served on the Supreme Court and resigned upon being elected Governor of New York) was renominated to the Supreme Court by President Adams. Jay declined the nomination. Adams went on to nominate John Marshall who was confirmed.
Both Levi Lincoln Sr. and John Quincy Adams similarly declined a nomination by President Madison. Madison eventually filled the seat with a successful nomination of Joseph Story.
There have been others who refused the nomination.
For someone who received a Senate confirmation we turn to William Smith who was nominated by President Andrew Jackson for a seat on the Supreme Court. Smith’s confirmation received Advice and Consent of the Senate (was confirmed) by a 23-18 vote but he refused to take the seat. The seat remained vacant until President Martin Van Buren filled the seat with the nomination of John McKinley later that same year.
If Kavanaugh declines to take a seat after Senate confirmation then President Trump would just nominate someone else in accordance with precedent.
About how many people have you heard this quixotic vision from? And what percentage of “the left” does this amount of people represent?
And THAT is literally why “the left,” cannot be trusted with the task of appointing federal judges.
No: the job of a federal judge, be he a lowly district court judge or the Chief Justice of the United States, is literally to uphold the judgement of the American people above other considerations.
The judgement of the American people is, of course, expressed in the ratification of the supreme law of the land, and in the legislation made pursuant to that supreme law.
Your off-the-cuff remark shows, in my view, the dangerous arrogance of the leftist American: the confidence that judges (but only those who think correctly) should override the stupid public, who cannot be trusted after all. They are not philosopher kings. Their job is to apply the words of the Constitution, and of federal law. Their job is not to inject their version of how society should improve itself. Substantive innovation is for the legislature.
So, you don’t support the Heller decision anymore? Because the Supremes in that case reversed a hell of a lot of laws passed by the will of the people. Likewise, I’m pleased to learn you’re on board with Roe v. Wade - a decision that about 70% of Americans support, per recent polling. I take it your opinion is that Kavanaugh’s duty is to uphold that, given that his job is all about upholding the will of the people?
There’s more projection in this than a twenty-screen multiplex.
Well, now that you’ve heard two such quixotic visions, how can I disagree? “The left” it is.
Last I checked, there were something like five openly white supremacist candidates who are the GOP candidates for Congressional seats this fall.
So by a much more rigorous yardstick than the one you employ here, the Republican party is the party of white supremacy.
Thanks for clarifying this for us, Bricker.
The notion that I can say any damnfool thing I want and it will be taken as though I am the authoritative mouthpiece for tens of millions of people makes me giddy. What should I say?
And if he doesn’t do this, he becomes that guy who doesn’t have those scruples. So what’s the difference?
Bricker, if it were as simple as that, we wouldn’t need justices at all. But the simple fact is, sometimes the law is unclear, and there are reasoned arguments on both sides of an issue, and someone has to interpret the law to determine which arguments are correct, and that is why we need judges.
And in America, people who win elections get their agenda blocked without it ever even coming to a vote. What does that make us?
OK so in that case Bricker I will view you, Roy Moore, that psycho Nazi running for congress from Illinois, and Richard Spencer as one and the same from now on. If that’s the standard you want to use for "the left’, then I will use that very same standard for “the right”. Cool?
Also worth noting that, while the fantasies being put forth in this thread are incredibly unlikely, they’re also explicitly fantasies. Yeah, it would be great if Kavanaugh took some sort of moral stand about SOCUS nominations. It would be great if he’s been a secret socialist his entire life, and his judicial decisions up to now were a long-con to get onto the court. It would be great if Jesus himself came down from heaven and denounced the Republican party. Nobody genuinely thinks any of these things are going to happen - we just think it would be nice if they did.
By comparison, the Republicans have QAnon supporters waving signs at Trump rallies. These are people who think that Mueller and Trump are working together to bust Clinton and Obama for running a secret international pedophilia cartel. They don’t think, “Wouldn’t it be cool if Clinton and Obama were thrown in jail?” They think this is something that’s actually happening.
That last paragraph is admittedly a tu quoque, but given the brazen paucity of logic in Bricker’s “Two guys said it, so it’s a mainstream leftist position!” I’m not too bothered.
In order for a debate to be Great, it shouldn’t be based on fantasy.
There goes all the religious debate threads, among other hypotheticals.
The OP is pretty damned clear that he’s just fantasizing. I guess the proper response would be to just say ‘won’t happen’, and move on.