Democrat senators Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid first introduced a filibuster for judicial nominees, and then ending the filibuster for judicial nominees when it was politically convenient for them.
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.
I'm well aware... but in this particular sentence he or she is talking about specific Democrat, not the Democratic Party, and as such, seems grammatical.
They did. Reid's cloture vote to end the filibuster applied to federal judges, not Supreme Court justices. Before the vote on Kavanaugh there was a cloture vote to end the filibuster.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/mitch-mcconn...
Do you think that might have affected the ability of the current president to successfully appoint a supreme court justice now?