DAMON LINKER: The futility of filibustering Neil Gorsuch.

If Democrats had a way to exert power in an act of equal-and-opposite retaliation against Republicans (as they would have if they’d managed to win control of the Senate last November), they’d be justified in doing so. That would be very bad for the Supreme Court, keeping it hobbled with only eight justices. But it might have the salutary effect of teaching Republicans a lesson and therefore making possible a compromise down the road. But Democrats have no such power.

The only thing that gives a filibustering senator the power to prevent a floor vote is a Senate rule requiring 60 votes to end debate. (Republicans hold only 52 seats and so would need at least eight Democrats to break ranks in order to clear that hurdle.) But this rule can itself be changed with a simple majority — and Democrats opted to take this so-called “nuclear option” back in November 2013, when they eliminated the filibuster for other kinds of nominations. This created a precedent that McConnell claims he will follow if Democrats attempt to block Gorsuch: He and his fellow Republicans will simply change the rule, allowing a simple majority to end debate for Supreme Court nominations. An up-or-down floor vote would then follow.

This prospect is what brings Democrats to their dilemma: Should they filibuster Gorsuch and risk having this counter-majoritarian power taken away from them for good?

The answer is no — because Democrats need to hold onto this meager power for the next opening on the court, when the stakes could be far, far higher for liberals.

The beauty of the Reid Option is that it remains just as viable for the GOP to exercise in 2018, 2019, or 2020 as it is today.

And Allahpundit, riffing on yesterday’s post, tweeted, “Really basic strategy, but the left is going to force Schumer to jump off the cliff anyway.”

Everybody knows you never go full Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid…