Democratic and liberal independent senators are in a perplexing situation regarding whether or not to filibuster, or obstruct, a vote on President Trump's Supreme Court Nominee, Neil Gorsuch. There is little doubt, and most sane-minded liberals would agree that Gorsuch has the resume and experience necessary to be worthy of a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). However, that does not entirely mean he is the best option in the interest of today's Americans and future Americans that will be affected by his term. That raises an issue for democrats: is Judge Gorsuch's lack of presence in their "mainstream" politics worth to filibuster?

The answer is: probably not. You might ask, "Well, Republicans didn't even bother to hold a confirmation on Merrick Garland. Why shouldn't Democrats do the same?" Because, just like Hillary Clinton coined it, when they go low, we go high. What the GOP did was not in line with their constitutional responsibility. President Obama did his constitutional duty to appoint a nominee, and the Senate should've followed through with their responsibility as well. Since that didn't happen, it's a shame that figures of the GOP put the party before duty. Democrats should not stoop to that level. It will polarize the parties further and create a distasteful view upon liberals.

In addition, a fairly new clause that has never been used might be called upon in this case: going nuclear. Trump gave the OK for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to "Go nuclear" if democrats filibuster. That means if democrats decide to obstruct the Gorsuch vote like the GOP did for Garland, McConnell has the power to potentially eliminate the filibuster and change the confirmation vote to a simple majority--not the 60 votes that's usually needed. This can set an awful precedent and further polarize the country.

The best bet for democrats is to allow the vote and vote how they choose. Gorsuch follows constitutionalism and interprets the document in its original form like how the Founding Fathers did (not to mention: the 3/5 compromise is a part of the original constitution and the Founding Fathers did agree upon that so does that count in Gorsuch's interpretation or can you pick and choose of how you want to think like a Founding Father?). Based on that, he will still get plenty of nays from liberal senators, but the confirmation most likely.

If there is one bright side (kinda...ish?) is that Gorsuch would be replacing another conservative judge in the late Justice Scalia so the SCOTUS is not losing a liberal seat nor are conservatives gaining one. It's basically a simple swap of the two so everything will be back to normal and all will be right with the world (maybe... hopefully... probably not).

Where democrats do need to start panicking is when if or when Justice Ginsburg or Kennedy kicks the bucket. As many as three Trump picks on the SCOTUS can lead to decades of conservative dominance on the Supreme Court.