Saunders: Democrats playing the losing game of obstructionism

Gorsuch has such solid credentials that the American Bar Association unanimously rated him “well qualified” to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court — its highest rating. In other words, Trump did not pick a flamethrower.

George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley, who is no Trump fan, argues that Gorsuch is a smart choice because of the Coloradan’s intellect. In USA Today, Turley wrote that he does not expect Gorsuch to change his “deep and well-established jurisprudential views,” which are conservative. “However, I expect he will go wherever his conscience takes him regardless of whether it proves a track to the left or the right.”

As Gorsuch told the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings, “It is the role of judges to apply, not alter, the work of the people’s representatives. A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge.”

In 2006, the Senate confirmed Gorsuch’s appointment to the Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals by unanimous consent. Schumer was in the Senate at the time. So how could Schumer tell The Washington Post on Thursday that it is “virtually impossible” to expect him and a majority of the Senate’s 47 other Democrats not to filibuster Gorsuch and deny him a simple up-or-down vote?

During his confirmation hearings, Gorsuch took on Democrats who suggested that he should rule based on who might get hurt, not on the law itself. “If the law can change so easily as that,” Gorsuch said, “where’s the due process to the individual, the person who doesn’t have an army of lawyers?” That is, Gorsuch made compelling arguments for judicial restraint.

Toxic partisanship

Compelling arguments don’t cut it in this toxic partisan atmosphere. During Barack Obama’s presidency, Democrats on Capitol Hill frequently bemoaned the obstructionism of the right. Now they try to block whatever Trump wants and call it “resistance” — with a smart, well-respected moderate conservative, in this case, as their target.

The worst part is, they know that this maneuver is not good for liberalism or the country. Nonetheless, they are prodding Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to extend the “nuclear option” introduced by his Democratic predecessor, Harry Reid, to block a filibuster and allow an up-or-down vote.

They seem not to care that ending the filibuster would enable Trump to name a much less moderate conservative for the next Supreme Court vacancy.

At a recent fundraiser, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., warned about the dangers of ending the filibuster. “I’m very uncomfortable being part of a strategy that’s going to open up the Supreme Court to a complete change,” she said. But by Friday, McCaskill announced that she would support a filibuster to stop Gorsuch.

Democrats share something with the far-right GOP base of 2016: Their elected officials are more afraid of the party base than of voters.