Fallout From Nuclear Option Won't Settle Where Dems Think

Any nuclear option will have fallout and the big question is always "Where will it settle?" In forcing the nuclear option in the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court, the Democrats have miscalculated where the fallout zone will be. Rather than landing on the Republicans and hurting Trump, it will come to rest squarely on them.

In their petulant effort to get even with the Republicans for not allowing Obama'a Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, to come up for a vote, not only will it not prevent Gorsuch from becoming an associate Justice, it will pave the way for potentially three more conservative Trump appointees who might have been effectively opposed had they not caused this new precedent. This was a wasted maneuver over a seat on the bench that would not have changed the balance of the court anyway because conservative Gorsuch will be replacing the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.
A much better strategy would have been to oppose the next Trump nominee who will most likely be replacing a retiring liberal Justice Ginsburg which could effect the balance of the court. Further, although it may play well with their far-left base, it is equally likely to shore up Trump's base.

Additionally, because the Supreme Court was such an important topic with Independents as well as Republican in the last election, this latest move by the Democrats, may push the Independents to support Trump and jeopardize the 2018 re-election chances for several more moderate Democrats in states that went for Trump in 2016. This would ultimately give the Republicans even larger majorities in the House and Senate making opposing their agenda even more difficult.

As the saying goes, "When your opponents are busy destroying themselves, don't get in the way."

Regarding Gorsuch

Judge Neil Gorsuch from the 10th Circuit of the US Court of Appeals was nominated this evening by President Trump to the US Supreme Court. He was unanimous confirmed by the Senate for his current position. Despite this, he will be fiercely opposed by Senate Democrats and he is already being called "way outside the mainstream of legal thought" and as having "extreme views" by the likes of Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY).

My questions are:
Senator, are you lying now when you say he is unfit or were you lying then when you said he was because you can't have it both ways?
Is there new information or did you just fail to do the proper "Due Diligence" before giving Gorsuch your approval back in 2006?

Pardon me Senator, I didn't catch that. Would you mumble your response again, please?