WASHINGTON Democrats really want to be the reasonable ones. When President Donald Trump announced Tuesday night that his Supreme Court pick would be Neil Gorsuch , they were, by and large, preparing for the normal Senate process and ready to consider the nominee on his merits.

But they cant forget about Merrick Garland.

That was President Barack Obama s pick for the Supreme Court seat that opened up in February 2016 the same seat Trump is now filling. Republicans prevented Obama from filling the seat all year by denying Garland a hearing, insisting that, because Obama was in his final year in office, the next president should get to fill the seat. It was a cynical strategy hatched by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to hold the seat open for Trump, and it worked. Republicans now get to fill the seat with a GOP nominee.

Though they say theyre ready to move on, its clear that Democrats view their role in considering Gorsuchs nomination, and the Senates processes, more cynically. They remember the unprecedented level of obstruction Republicans waged on Garland, a Supreme Court nominee who GOP senators didnt even oppose on his merits. Perhaps more importantly, they remember how McConnell violated the norms of the Senate, an institution the prides itself on its adherence to rules and decorum.

The ghost of Merrick Garland still floats around part of this place, said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).

Im going to take a look at his nominee but lets make it clear: This is a different process now because of what they did last year, he said. They made the decision to politicize the Supreme Court process, and ultimately theyll have to own that.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who was the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee last year and led the push to get Garland a hearing, said he still cant believe the way Republicans treated Obamas nominee.

Im the longest-serving senator. Ive never seen anything like that with either the Republicans or the Democrats, Leahy said. We all take an oath to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution says the president shall nominate, says we shall advise and consent. The president followed the Constitution. The Senate violated it.

Its still a painful memory, added Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.). But were committed to doing what Mitch McConnell would not do, and that is giving the nominee a hearing.

The Huffington Post talked to several Democratic senators to gauge how deeply the past years Supreme Court fight may have tainted their views on how the Senate is supposed to work. Their initial responses were pragmatic and reasoned, like Durbins, emphasizing the need to treat all nominees fairly. A Supreme Court confirmation may be the most important vote they take in their entire Senate career, some argued, and these types of nominations require thoughtful, apolitical vetting.

But probing a little deeper, there was a simmering anger.

Of course it does, Durbin snapped, when asked if the Garland fight soured his perspective on how the Senate is supposed to function.

This has never happened before in the history of the United States. Never. Durbin said never, yes he said never, he continued. And [McConnell] did it gleefully. McConnell announced the day after the election, I won! We kept the vacancy open and now President Trump gets to fill it. Do we remember? Sure.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) said Tuesday before Trumps announcement that she wanted to wait to learn about the nominee before saying much about the confirmation process. She stepped into an elevator as a HuffPost reporter asked if she had lingering bad feelings from Garlands fight.

What do you think? she asked as the doors closed.

Some Democrats said Republicans treatment of Garland did lasting damage to government operations, and not just the Senate.

We now have, in effect, an acceptance of deferring consideration of a Supreme Court nominee simply for political purposes, and that politicized and degraded the United States Supreme Court as an institution, said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).