The crack Washington Post editorial staff has thoughts about what the Democrats should do about the Gorsuch nomination. After conceding that McConnell wouldn’t even give Garland a hearing, their bottom line is like David Broder lives:
The resulting standoff could end in three ways. First, a cloture vote could attract sufficient Democratic votes to reach the 60-vote threshold to stop a filibuster, which is unlikely. Second, Mr. McConnell could move to eliminate the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees, which would be deeply unwise and injure both parties in the long term. Third, the parties could strike a deal that would preserve the filibuster for the minority party in the case of future nominees while providing for an up-or-down vote on Mr. Gorsuch’s confirmation. That, not deepening the politicization of the judiciary, is the best path forward.
I see. So the Dems could agree to theoretically preserve the filibuster for Republicans to blow up later, in exchange for Republicans getting what they want now. This would prevent the “politicization of the judiciary.” Remember the Gang of 14? This would work equally well.
Needless to say, the judiciary is not “politicized” when a president rejected by a majority of the public nominates someone who takes immense self-satisfaction from using the logic of a mediocre junior high school debater to hold in favor of a company who fired a truck driver for not waiting to freeze to death because after all if the company offers you a choice to freeze to death you still have been offered a choice, this does not in any way “politicize the judiciary.” After all, he went to Harvard Law!