Sorry to duplicate another call to watch.  But I am afraid this will disappear.  Merkley isn’t reading some book, he is giving a lesson on what is going wrong in governance.  I will try to get the gist of it — it is not verbatim.

Some transcription:

I couldn’t transcribe earlier - but Merkley gave a very good picture of why there is so much acrimony in Washington - pointing to the overwhelming demands of the Koch brothers and others for the Republicans to serve them rather than serve their constituents.  When representatives of the people work for the people, they find common ground.  When too many of them are working for a small powerful minority, it is hard to achieve anything that serves the people.  

Three vacancies occurred after the general election and justices were confirmed.  

four vacancies occurred before election, but were acted on after the election - some were tabled or rejected, but in all cases, the senate acted.

9 vacancies occurred in election year with nominations coming before the election.  Two of these were tabled,  6 confirmed, and only Gorsuch received no action.  

Most of these long time ago - but still establish the idea that a nominee deserves action from the Senate.

15 times there has been a vacancy and all have received action until last year.  

We have entered new territory to amp up partisan tactics to pack the court.  To my colleagues: Would you feel comfortable if the tables were reversed?  That’s the ability to walk in someone else’s shoes.  For 293 days no action was taken, a complete break with Senate tradition.

He is quoting Biden who said that naming the nominee after the campaign might depoliticize the process.  

I think we have such an imbalance in this argument to anyone who opens their eyes.  the Constitution and our history on one side and an out of context comment by Biden on the other.  This will haunt the supreme court for decades to come if we continue down this route.  

(10:30 pm in DC now, looking tired but going strong)

Now explaining the filibuster.  It is an evolution of the words free booter — a pirate.  Another way of describing it was we have the courtesy of hearing everyone.  It protects that tradition.  But it has resulted in the Senate unable to act.  We say that we should vote against closing debate on Thursday.  It is 60 Senators have to be supportive for someone to be on the Supreme Court.  That protects the integrity of the court, not letting someone from the extremes on the court.  That’s why many of us believe that we should vote against closing debate.  This is the first time in US History that the majority leader has filed a petition to close debate on the first day the nomination comes to the floor.

Trump didn’t have to ask Gorsuch a single question.  He had already been chosen by two of the most conservative groups in our country.
Some say, maybe we can preserve the sixty vote standard to use it as a tool later.  Why are they saying this?  Because the majority has said that they may change the rule.  We have a message — if you don’t have the votes, change the nominee, not the rule.  That’s what should happen.  It’s possible.  That is a decision that our side cannot control.  
There is no check for the supreme court, that is why we need to leave the supermajority in place.  We have a president who like to run counter to tradition.  He looked at the power of the Senate, if he understood any of the background, he said that he didn’t care — he would nominate from the extreme.  Now that extreme is pushing again.
Can’t we be 100 people who put aside dark money interests to do the right thing. Don’t we have the ability, the soul, the insight to defend this institution.  When people look back, if the decision is to destroy the 60 vote requirement, it is stripping away a key element of protecting the integrity of the court.