There are so many unpacked assumptions and unevaluated arguments here it would take a book to work through them all. To give a short version - if you oppose a

There are so many unpacked assumptions and unevaluated arguments here it would take a book to work through them all. To give a short version - if you oppose a filibuster, then don't use it to prevent Merrick Garland from being on the court. Nothing about Schumer's position on the filibuster in 2002 can be used to argue that the trajectory of court appointments since then is a culmination of any logically consistent argument in response to it.