The battle to confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court is set to come to a head this week and will likely reshape how the Senate confirms future justices, prompting senators and other observers to warn that subsequent battles over court nominees could be even more heated. 
 
 Gorsuch's nomination to replace Antonin Scalia, with whom he shares an "originalist" philosophy of constitutional interpretation, is unlikely to tip the ideological balance of the Supreme Court. And Gorsuch's three days of confirmation hearings last month never captured the national attention afforded to previous nominees. 
 
 But with the Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled to refer him to the full Senate on Monday, lawmakers are about to embark on the final - and perhaps most bitter - round of debate. 
 
 Three days of formal debate begin Tuesday with Republicans planning to confirm Gorsuch by Friday. That timeline would give the 49-year-old federal appeals court judge a chance to join the high court in late April and to participate in the final cases of this year's term, which ends in June. 
 
 The Republican-controlled Senate is likely to confirm him, but only if it changes the chamber's rules. Democrats are vowing to filibuster Gorsuch, a tactical roadblock that can only be overcome with the votes of 60 senators. Republicans hold 52 seats, and only three moderate Democrats so far say they plan to vote for Gorsuch. 
 
 On Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., said that it is "highly, highly unlikely" that Republicans will get the 60 votes needed to end a Democratic filibuster. Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Schumer added that it "is up to Mitch McConnell and the Republican majority" to set the rules and tenor for the confirmation vote. 
 
 But McConnell, R-Ky., the Senate majority leader, disagreed, telling "Fox News Sunday" that Gorsuch will "ultimately be confirmed. Exactly how that happens ... will be up to our Democratic colleagues." 
 
 If Democrats successfully filibuster Gorsuch, McConnell and his caucus are likely to agree to change the chamber's rules and end filibusters on Supreme Court picks. That would extend a rule change made by Democrats in 2013 that punished Republicans for years of attempts to block President Barack Obama's nominees by ending filibusters for all executive branch appointments and lower-court picks. 
 
 Last year, Republicans refused to hold hearings or votes for Judge Merrick Garland, Obama's choice to replace Scalia, arguing that the next president should get to pick the replacement. The move infuriated Democrats - and has been a major factor in generating such unified opposition to Gorsuch. 
 
 Martin B. Gold, a former floor adviser and counsel to Senate majority leaders Howard Baker, R-Tenn., and Bill Frist, R-Tenn., who has written a book on Senate floor procedure, warned that this week's expected change in Senate rules is likely to put even more importance on the partisan control of the Senate. 
 
 "Between the Democrats taking offense at what the Republicans did on Garland and Republicans taking offense to what Democrats are doing to Gorsuch, you wonder who's going to put the weapons down, or if they'll always stay drawn," Gold said. "And if the partisan makeup flips, you wonder if a president will ever get anyone confirmed." 
 
 In interviews before Gorsuch's confirmation hearings last month, several Republican senators agreed that Gorsuch was a safe conservative choice who would maintain the balance of the court and make future fights to fill vacancies even more critical. 
 
 "I have no doubt that from the Democrats' perspective, the next vacancy will be Armageddon. They will fire every attack they can marshal at whoever the nominee is," said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. 
 
 Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., agreed, saying that the next confirmation fight will be "a blood bath." 
 
 Cruz and Flake's predictions assume that the next Supreme Court vacancy will be caused by the departure of aging liberal justices, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Steven Breyer or by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the court's most frequent swing vote. 
 
 The Gorsuch battle has not generated as much interest or concern among liberal organizations as among conservative groups. Conservative groups have spent nearly $10 million on a television ad campaign designed to pressure moderate Democrats. 
 
 Adam Jentleson, senior strategic adviser to the liberal Center for American Progress, said that progressives may not have felt as compelled to fight the Gorsuch nomination this year. But next time, he said, "We should prepare by being ready to wage the battle of ideas as aggressively as possible." 
 
 The partisan dynamic could be "flipped in the future - and that's the key thing," he said. "There's probably not much more that would be more motivating (to Democrats) than the terrifying prospect of Trump appointing an extreme conservative to the court to tip the balance for a lifetime. So, I think that with conservatives there's a false sense of security that that's something that plays to their advantage. I don't think that will end up being true." 
 
 Carrie Severino, chief counsel of the pro-Gorsuch Judicial Crisis Network, which is bankrolling the multimillion dollar ad campaign, said Schumer and Democrats are promoting a "historic level of gridlock." She said her conservative organization has been opposed to judicial filibusters in both Republican and Democratic administrations and that only Democrats have ever used threats of a filibuster against Republican nominees. 
 
 JCN's ad campaign appeared to help convince two moderate Democratic senators, Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., and Joe Manchin III, D-W. Va., last week to say that they will support Gorsuch. 
 
 On Sunday, Sen. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., became the third Democrat to announce support for Gorsuch. He has been among 10 Democrats facing re-election next year in states that Trump carried in the November election who have been targeted by a multimillion dollar ad campaign backing Gorsuch. 
 
 The decisions by Heitkamp and Manchin earned swift rebukes from liberal organizations. NARAL Pro-Choice America, an abortion rights group that helps mobilize Democratic voters, warned that they would not endorse any Democrat who supports Gorsuch. On Sunday, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a liberal political group that campaigns for Democratic candidates, ran full-page ads in North Dakota and West Virginia newspapers criticizing the senators' choice. 
 
 That pressure may have been a factor for Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who has also been targeted by JCN but said on Friday she will vote against Gorsuch. In an essay to constituents, she said it had been "a really difficult decision for me." ||||| poster="http://v.politico.com/images/1155968404/201704/1612/1155968404_5383679737001_5383666898001-vs.jpg?pubId=1155968404" true Congress Senate Democrats have votes to filibuster Gorsuch Mitch McConnell reiterates that he's prepared to kill the filibuster to get the high court nominee confirmed. 
 
 Neil Gorsuch almost certainly will end this week confirmed as a Supreme Court justice. And the Senate’s rules — indeed, the institutional character of the chamber — seem just as sure to end up severely eroded. 
 
 Senate Democrats on Monday secured the 41 votes needed to block the nomination of President Donald Trump’s first pick for the Supreme Court. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his GOP ranks have not backed down in the face of the filibuster threat, continuing to insist that Gorsuch will be installed as the next high court justice, whether Democrats like it or not. 
 
 Story Continued Below 
 
 "I'm going to do whatever it takes to get Gorsuch on the Supreme Court," Senate Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said Monday. "If the Democrats will filibuster this person, of the high quality that he is, there isn't any justice that a Republican will put forth that they would ... support." 
 
 The competing postures mean the Senate is hurtling toward the use later this week of the so-called nuclear option — changing the chamber’s rules with a simple majority so that Supreme Court filibusters can be cut off with just 51 votes, rather than the long-required 60-vote threshold. 
 
 Democrats say Gorsuch, who was approved by the Judiciary Committee on Monday, has only himself to blame for not earning their support. 
 
 “When Gorsuch refused to answer the most rudimentary questions in the hearings, after there were many doubts about him to begin with … there was a seismic change in my caucus,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “And it's highly, highly unlikely that he'll get 60.” 
 
 On Monday afternoon, 42 Senate Democrats had confirmed they would vote to filibuster Gorsuch, according to a POLITICO tally. Three Democrats — Sens. Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, all moderates up for reelection next year — have said they support the federal appellate judge from Colorado. Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado said he would not vote to filibuster Gorsuch, but has not said yet whether he will back the nominee on a final confirmation vote. 
 
 Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy and Virginia Sen. Mark Warner all said Monday morning that they would vote to block Gorsuch from getting an up-or-down confirmation vote. Still undecided on a filibuster are independent Sen. Angus King of Maine, who caucuses with Democrats, and Bob Menendez of New Jersey. 
 
 The broad expectation on Capitol Hill is that Gorsuch will be the first Supreme Court nominee successfully filibustered since Abe Fortas for chief justice in 1968. More announcements from Democrats are expected after the Judiciary Committee cleared Gorsuch’s nomination on Monday, which occurred on a party-line 11-9 vote. King said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that he'll likely announce his decision on Tuesday or Wednesday. 
 
 Sign up here for POLITICO Huddle A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. 
 
 “I don’t think we know,” whether eight Democrats will help Republicans break a Gorsuch filibuster, McConnell said on “Fox News Sunday.” But he added: “What I’m telling you is that Judge Gorsuch is going to be confirmed. The way in which that occurs is in the hands of the Democratic minority.” 
 
 The confrontation is years in the making. 
 
 Republicans point to Democrats’ repeated use of the filibuster for judicial nominees under the George W. Bush administration, including Miguel Estrada, who would have been the first Latino to sit on the influential D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Democrats also tried to block Samuel Alito, but 72 senators helped advance the now-Supreme Court justice past the procedural hurdle. 
 
 The so-called Gang of 14 helped defuse the nominations war under Bush by agreeing not to filibuster judicial nominees except under extraordinary circumstances. But in 2013, Senate Democrats invoked the nuclear option for all presidential nominees except for the Supreme Court after Republicans, then in the minority, repeatedly blocked nominees from President Barack Obama. 
 
 Republicans further inflamed the situation last year by essentially ignoring Merrick Garland, whom Obama nominated in March 2016 to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, because it was an election year. In January, Trump nominated Gorsuch as his pick for Scalia’s seat. 
 
 Schumer insisted Sunday that because neither side got — or, without the use of the nuclear option, will get — its preferred nominee to replace Scalia, Republicans should work with Democrats to pick a more consensus candidate. 
 
 “Our Republican friends are acting like, you know, they're a cat on the top of a tree and they have to jump off with all the damage that entails,” Schumer said Sunday. “Come back off the tree, sit down, and work with us and we will produce a mainstream nominee.” 
 
 But substantive talks toward a compromise have not materialized. And senators from both parties are now acknowledging the inevitable: not just the nuclear option but a continued demise of the unique traditions of the Senate. 
 
 “We find ourselves where both sides of the aisle have basically taken this place into the ditch,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) told reporters last week. “Every time one side gets the advantage, they say if the other side were in our position, this is what they’d do. So we continue to spiral down.” ||||| Senators in both parties are speculating that a blowup over President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court could lead not only to the end of the filibuster for such nominations, but for controversial legislation as well. 
 
 While Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Addison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellThe Hill's Morning Report: Frustration mounts as Republicans blow up tax message Blankenship defends 'Chinaperson' amid further attacks on McConnell Republicans confirming Trump's court nominees at record pace MORE (R-Ky.) said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the legislative filibuster is safe, lawmakers fear that pressure will grow to get rid of it if Democrats block Neil Gorsuch’s nomination this week. 
 
 McConnell has all but promised to change the Senate’s rules to allow Gorsuch to be confirmed in a majority vote if Democrats filibuster him. 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 The showdown will take place later this week after a Senate Judiciary Committee vote on Monday. 
 
 Senators in both parties are worried about how the fight over Gorsuch will affect the filibuster. 
 
 “The thing I worry most about is that we become like the House of Representatives. What’s the next step? Legislation?” said Sen. John McCain John Sidney McCainTapper on Michelle Wolf backlash: Do Trump supporters really want to talk about decency? The Hill's Morning Report: Trump, Bibi tag-team on Iran Senate Dems to force vote on net neutrality MORE (R-Ariz.). 
 
 “I’m convinced it’s a slippery slope.” 
 
 Sen. Bob Corker Robert (Bob) Phillips CorkerThe Hill's Morning Report: Frustration mounts as Republicans blow up tax message Poll: Dem leads by 3 points in Tennessee Senate race GOP anxiety grows over Trump’s Iran decision MORE (R-Tenn.) warned last week on the Senate floor that growing pressure from the right and the left will make it difficult to withstand calls to eliminate the legislative filibuster. 
 
 “If we continue on the path we’re on right now, the very next time there’s a legislative proposal that one side of the aisle feels is so important they cannot let their base down, the pressure builds, then we’re going to vote the nuclear option on the legislative piece,” he said. 
 
 “That’s what will happen. Somebody will do it.” 
 
 Sen. Joe Manchin Joseph (Joe) ManchinGOP Senate candidate doctors picture of opponent, replaces Trump with Clinton Zinke, Alexander pen op-ed: Our parks are being 'loved to death' May brings key primaries across nation MORE (D-W.Va.), one of only three Democrats who have explicitly said they’d oppose a filibuster of Gorsuch, warns the Senate is in danger of becoming a smaller version of the House, where the minority party has few rights. 
 
 “People who have been here for a long time know that we’re going down the wrong path here. The most unique political body in the world, the United States Senate, will be no more than a six-year term in the House,” he said. 
 
 “I’m doing whatever I can to preserve he 60-vote rule,” he said. 
 
 Sen. Heidi Heitkamp Mary (Heidi) Kathryn HeitkampDemocrats should not expect a blue wave in mid-term elections Senators warn against placing Medicaid work requirements on tribes Federal 'turf war' complicates cybersecurity efforts MORE (D-N.D.), who like Manchin says she will vote to allow Gorsuch’s nomination to move forward, said she is also concerned about the legislative filibuster. 
 
 “This erosion that seems to be happening, of course I’m worried about it,” she said. 
 
 Gorsuch picked up a third Democratic vote on Sunday when Sen. Joe Donnelly Joseph (Joe) Simon DonnellyMay brings key primaries across nation GOP lawmaker touts Nobel Peace Prize for Trump Pompeo vote won’t guarantee Democrats a win in November MORE (Ind.) said he would back him. 
 
 Republicans need 60 votes to overcome the filibuster backed by Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer Charles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerSchumer warns Trump to stop threatening DOJ: 'Do not go down this road' Poll finds 4M lost health insurance in last two years Overnight Tech: Sparks fly as Diamond and Silk testify | EU proposes new rules for internet companies | FTC back at full strength MORE (N.Y.), who on Sunday said it is “highly, highly unlikely” that Republicans will get there. 
 
 Sen. Claire McCaskill Claire Conner McCaskillPeople need fair insurance coverage in a medical emergency Democrats should not expect a blue wave in mid-term elections Polls show Missouri Senate race in dead heat MORE (D-Mo.) on Friday and Sen. Jon Tester Jonathan (Jon) Tester53 migrants from caravan allowed into US for asylum: report White House vetting at least three candidates for VA secretary: report GOP senator’s defense of Tester counters Trump attacks MORE (D-Mont.) on Sunday said they would oppose Gorsuch and back a filibuster. The decisions by the two senators, who both face reelection next year in states won by Trump, seem to back Schumer's words up. 
 
 Republicans need to find another six votes to invoke cloture, and they have few options left. 
 
 Sen. Patrick Leahy Patrick Joseph LeahyCongress should build on the momentum from spending bill Overnight Tech: Zuckerberg grilled by lawmakers over data scandal | What we learned from marathon hearing | Facebook hit with class action lawsuit | Twitter endorses political ad disclosure bill | Uber buys bike share Overnight Cybersecurity: Zuckerberg faces grilling in marathon hearing | What we learned from Facebook chief | Dems press Ryan to help get Russia hacking records | Top Trump security adviser resigning MORE (D-Vt.), a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has sent mixed signals over whether he’d back the filibuster. 
 
 Sen. Michael Bennet Michael Farrand BennetWinter Olympians call for action on climate Overnight Health Care: GOP pushes stiff work requirements for food stamps | Johnny Isakson opens up about family's tragic loss to opioids | Republicans refuse to back vulnerable Dem's opioids bill | Dems offer new public option plan Lawmakers discuss Latino education gap MORE (D-Colo.), who represents Gorsuch’s home state, is an unknown, as are Sens. Chris Coons Christopher (Chris) Andrew CoonsOvernight Defense: Pompeo clears Senate panel, on track for confirmation | Retired officers oppose Haspel for CIA director | Iran, Syria on agenda for Macron visit Pompeo headed for confirmation after surprise panel vote Pompeo lacks votes for positive vote on panel MORE (D-Del.), Mark Warner Mark Robert WarnerEx-Trump aide decries Senate Russia probe over high legal bills: report House chairman eases demands on Dodd-Frank rollback Senate confirms Pompeo as Trump's new secretary of State MORE (D-Va.) and Angus King Angus Stanley KingPompeo vote won’t guarantee Democrats a win in November The Hill's Morning Report: As Trump talks, his lawyers sweat Senate confirms Pompeo as Trump's new secretary of State MORE (I-Maine). 
 
 There are some in both parties who would like nothing more than to see the filibuster bite the dust. 
 
 Former Rep. Matt Salmon Matthew (Matt) James SalmonArizona GOP tinkers with election rules with an eye on McCain's seat Quiet jockeying for McCain seat angers Republicans McSally tells GOP colleagues she'll run for Arizona Senate MORE (R-Ariz.) said the filibuster was created to protect the minority party “in extreme circumstances” but it has now become so common that it’s almost impossible to pass individual appropriations bills before the end of the fiscal year. 
 
 “It’s become so common place to block just about everything including even appropriation bills so that the Congress can’t get its work done. The filibuster as it’s currently used has really worn out its welcome,” he said in an interview. 
 
 The large class of Senate Republican freshmen elected in the 2014 midterm elections pushed for rules reform in the last Congress, but it didn’t lead to any changes. They favored more narrow reform, however, such as curbing the power to block motions to begin consideration of new business on the Senate floor. 
 
 Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) called on Republicans immediately after Trump won the presidency to ditch the filibuster. 
 
 “My biggest concern is that they not allow some of these arcane rules that have nothing to do with the Constitution,” he said in a radio interview the day after the election. 
 
 McConnell, a Senate traditionalist, tried to ease concerns about the fate of the filibuster Sunday when he told NBC’s Chuck Todd that the power to block legislation with 41 votes retains strong support in the Senate. 
 
 “I don’t think the legislative filibuster is in danger. It’s a longstanding tradition of the Senate. The business of filibustering judges is quite new,” he said. 
 
 Schumer, also appearing on “Meet the Press,” said he also wants to preserve the 60-vote threshold for controversial legislation. 
 
 “I don’t think there’s any thirst to change the legislative rule, 60 votes for that. Most Democrats and most Republicans who have served in both the minority and the majority knows what it means,” he said. 
 
 But his predecessor, former Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid Harry Mason ReidHow endangered GOP Sen. Dean Heller is seeking to hang on The Memo: Trump allies want to turn midterms into 'impeachment referendum' GOP moves to cut debate time for Trump nominees MORE (Nev.), predicted in a December interview, shortly before retiring from Congress, that the days of the legislative filibuster are numbered. 
 
 He said the Senate rules protecting minority rights are “going to erode, it’s just a question of when.” 
 
 “You can’t have a democracy decided by 60 out of 100, and that’s why changing the rules is one of the best things that has happened to America in a long time,” he told Politico. ||||| Supreme Court nominee is well qualified and within the broad judicial mainstream. 
 
 Supreme Court Justice nominee Neil Gorsuch during his confirmation hearing in Capitol Hill on March 22, 2017. (Photo: Susan Walsh, AP) 
 
 One way or another, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reiterated Sunday, Neil Gorsuch will be confirmed this week to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. 
 
 Democrats have good reason to be outraged by the Republicans’ rush to confirm President Trump's nominee. The vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalia's death in February 2016, nearly nine months before the election, was rightfully President Obama’s to fill, and Obama nominated a judge — Merrick Garland — with sterling credentials and moderate views. 
 
 Yet the Republican-controlled Senate let the Garland nomination die after 293 days, without a vote or even a hearing. No wonder many Democrats are thirsting for payback. 
 
 The fact is, however, that elections have consequences, and McConnell's cynical gambit paid off. Trump won. Republicans held the Senate. Even if Democrats filibuster, McConnell is prepared to change Senate rules and leave the Democrats unable to block Gorsuch, who deserves to be evaluated on his own merits. 
 
 By traditional measures, Gorsuch is a reasonable heir to the seat held by Scalia, an iconic "originalist" who interpreted the Constitution’s words in the way they were understood by the Founders. Importantly, Gorsuch’s confirmation would leave the ideological balance on the court roughly where it was before Scalia's death. 
 
 Our custom on the Editorial Board is to evaluate Supreme Court nominees based on their academic and legal credentials, personal integrity, position within the broad judicial mainstream and respect for legal precedent (which should be healthy but not mindless). 
 
 Gorsuch’s credentials are impeccable: Columbia, Harvard, Oxford, federal and Supreme Court clerkships and a decade on the federal appeals bench. He received a “well-qualified” rating, the highest available, from the American Bar Association. On principles and independence, he has gotten an array of glowing references, including from some Democrats and liberals. Extensive vetting has unearthed no hint of personal scandal. 
 
 As for his judicial philosophy, the 49-year-old judge from Colorado would not be on our short list for the high court. While in the broad mainstream, he veers too close to the right bank for our taste, particularly on issues involving discrimination, government protection of the powerless and, presumably, reproductive rights. But he is no fire-breathing extremist. 
 
 The question of Gorsuch's respect for precedent is somewhat murkier. Even more than past nominees, he wiggled away at his confirmation hearings from questions about whether previous landmark cases were rightly decided. It was a struggle to get him to say anything substantive even about rulings going back decades, though he did allow that Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 decision striking down public school segregation, was “one of the shining moments in constitutional history.” 
 
 Gorsuch's record on the bench suggests that, on some key issues, he might well show the independence the nation needs at this moment in its history. 
 
 The nominee's suspicions about courts giving too much deference to executive branch power could lead him to rule against a president who seeks to exceed his authority. Gorsuch has received high marks, including from Obama’s acting solicitor general Neal Katyal, for defending courts as the ultimate authority to say "what the law is.” At his hearings, Gorsuch declared as strongly as he could his independence from the man who nominated him, saying that “nobody is above the law in this country, and that includes the president.” 
 
 Gorsuch has protected the Fourth Amendment rights of suspects against law enforcement overreach. And his strong defense of religious freedom doesn’t stop with owners of businesses, as in the controversial Hobby Lobby case: He has also defended those rights for Native American and Muslim prisoners. Where cases have touched on free speech and press issues, he has ruled in line with well-established First Amendment principles. 
 
 As the Gorsuch nomination heads for a vote Monday in the Senate Judiciary Committee, objecting to Republican obstructionism is fair game. So is disagreeing with the nominee’s legal philosophy. But insisting he is unfit for the bench is not. 
 
 Overall, Gorsuch is about the best choice the country can expect from this president; in fact, the nomination was one of the least objectionable things Trump has done since taking office. 
 
 USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature. 
 
 To read more editorials, go to the Opinion front page or sign up for the daily Opinion email newsletter. To respond to this editorial, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com. 
 
 Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2nM66W7 ||||| Breaking News Emails Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings. 
 
 / Updated By Leigh Ann Caldwell 
 
 The Senate is barreling toward a showdown that could alter how the body governs itself and have far-reaching implications for the nation's highest court. 
 
 The fight is over the confirmation of President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, but the nominee himself is perhaps more collateral damage than incendiary spark after a decade of Senate infighting that has bred a toxic atmosphere of mistrust and animosity. The high-stakes political battle waging around him could lead to a major change in Senate rules and pave the way for more overtly ideological nominees to the high court. 
 
 The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote Gorsuch’s nomination out of committee Monday, likely along party lines. The next step is for the full Senate to consider his nomination, a process that could move the Senate into unprecedented territory. 
 
 Emboldened by their political bases, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer are entering the week by standing firm. 
 
 "Neil Gorsuch will be confirmed this week. How that happens will really depend on what will happen with our Democratic friends," said McConnell on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday. 
 
 Schumer and his fellow Democrats Monday acquired enough votes to block Gorsuch’s nomination because they are requiring a 60-vote threshold for him to pass — also known as a filibuster. With only 52 Republicans, the GOP would have needed eight Democrats, but enough Democrats have announced that they'd block Gorsuch's nomination, all but ensuring a showdown. 
 
 Related: These Are the Democrats Voting Against Neil Gorsuch 
 
 Republicans are seemingly prepared to respond by changing the Senate rules to allow Supreme Court nominations to pass with a simple majority, a dramatic move known as the “nuclear option.” Such a move would be the latest escalation in a long-running partisan battle over the judiciary and other presidential appointments in the upper chamber. 
 
 "You shouldn’t change the rules. You should change the nominee," said Schumer, who predicted on "Meet the Press" that Gorsuch will not receive the support of 60 senators. 
 
 “It’s a big deal,” said Norm Orenstein, scholar at the center-right American Enterprise Institute. “You have a situation where you have rules and you have norms of behavior. The rules provide some significant check, but you still gotta operate with norms.” 
 
 And while both Republicans and Democrats are aware of the calamity of the impending outcome, they also recognize that damage might be beyond repair after years of increased partisanship. 
 
 Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona has been engaged in conversations with some of his Republican and Democratic colleagues to stave off the worst-case scenario, but those haven’t yet led to true negotiations. 
 
 Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) is one of the Democratic senators McCain has spoken to, but Coons said there is “not a lot of common ground” to work with. 
 
 “There is not a lot of trust between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate,” Coons told NBC News. 
 
 Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri who is up for re-election in 2018 in a state that Trump won, announced her opposition to Gorsuch on Friday, and said she’d go a step further and support a filibuster against him. She admitted in a Medium post that her decision could have deep political ramifications in the future. 
 
 “I remain very worried about our polarized politics and what the future will bring, since I’m certain we will have a Senate rule change that will usher in more extreme judges in the future.” McCaskill wrote. 
 
 Democrats forced a rules change in 2013 after Senate Republicans blocked most of President Barack Obama’s judicial nominees and several cabinet positions. The "nuclear option" imposed then reduced the threshold for passage from 60 votes to 51 votes for all cabinet and judicial positions other than the Supreme Court, allowing Obama’s nominees to pass. It’s a decision that Schumer has said he laments. 
 
 But McConnell’s refusal to even consider President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, not giving him a hearing or even holding meetings, inflamed tensions. 
 
 The Republican leader has cited election-year politics as the reason for that decision — and it is one that Democrats admit is playing into their considerations on Gorsuch, who would assume the seat that has sat vacant since Justice Antonin Scalia died more than a year ago. 
 
 “As I talk to Democrats, I think we are all outraged at how Merrick Garland was treated in the process and that got us to where we are today. As I talk to Republicans, they remind me of the 2013 changes in rules," Coons said. "And frankly there is a long list of back and forth, back and forth about we believe they badly mistreated Barack Obama’s nominees and they believe that Barack Obama overreached and that we were oblivious or unconcerned about their issues to executive overreach.” 
 
 Buoyed by their party's activists, Schumer and McConnell have little incentive to ratchet down the extremes. The Senate’s mood is reflective of the mood in the country. In a recent NBC News/Survey Monkey poll released last week, 84 percent of Republicans want a vote on Gorsuch while only 31 percent of Democrats do. (However, most polls taken after Garland's nomination indicated that a majority of Americans wanted him to be confirmed.) 
 
 Liberal groups are urging the Senate Democrat’s campaign arm, the DSCC, to challenge Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota because they have announced that they will support Gorsuch. Senator Joe Donnelly of Indiana is the third Democrat to announce his support for Gorsuch. 
 
 “I was deeply disappointed by the way the most recent Supreme Court nominee, Judge Garland, was treated by the Senate, but as Senator, I can only vote on the nominee that comes to the Senate floor," Donnelly said in a statement Sunday. "However, I believe that we should keep the current 60-vote threshold for Supreme Court nominees.” 
 
 And on the right, the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, which has spent at least $10 million targeting senators over Gorsuch, put out a statement ahead of this week’s vote. 
 
 “We will be on the front lines supporting him and his colleagues," Carrie Severino, chief counsel of the Judicial Crisis Network, said in a statement. "Chuck Schumer is engaged in a scorched-earth, first-ever partisan filibuster to try and block Judge Gorsuch.” ||||| WASHINGTON—Senate leaders sparred Sunday over this week’s coming vote on Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court, a battle that puts Democrats in red-leaning states in the position of choosing between a Republican-nominated judge and their own party’s wish to block President Donald Trump. 
 
 On Monday, the 20-member Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote largely along party lines to send Judge Gorsuch’s nomination...
– Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch is going to be confirmed one way or another, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell vowed on Sunday—and the Democrats appear ready to have it done the hard way. Senate Democrats are closing in on the 41 votes needed to block the confirmation, making it almost a certainty that McConnell will use the "nuclear option" and change Senate rules to have Gorsuch confirmed with a simple majority instead of 60 votes, Politico reports. The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote 11-9 along party lines Monday to send the nomination to the full Senate. A roundup of coverage: Some 36 Democrats have announced their opposition to Gorsuch, along with independent Bernie Sanders, while just three Democrats so far say they will support him, the AP reports. That leaves seven Democrats and Maine independent Angus King undecided. If four of them decide to oppose Gorsuch, he will be the first Supreme Court nominee successfully filibustered since 1968. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer tells NBC News that it's highly unlikely Gorsuch will get 60 votes, and he wants the GOP to change the nominee instead of changing the rules. "Our Republican friends are acting like, you know, they're a cat on the top of a tree and they have to jump off with all the damage that entails," he says. "Come back off the tree, sit down, and work with us and we will produce a mainstream nominee." The Chicago Tribune sets out the timeline: Three days of formal debate will start Tuesday, followed by an expected confirmation on Friday. Republicans want to have Gorsuch on the court by the end of this month. Democratic senators from red states are the most divided on the nomination, the Wall Street Journal reports. Missouri's Sen. Claire McCaskill came out against Gorsuch Friday, but she said it was a tough decision, especially since it is likely to lead to "a Senate rule change that will usher in more extreme judges in the future." Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, cited the potential rule change as his reason for supporting the nomination, the Hill reports. "People who have been here for a long time know that we’re going down the wrong path here," he said. "The most unique political body in the world, the United States Senate, will be no more than a six-year term in the House." The editorial board of USA Today says that despite some questionable rulings, Gorsuch is no "fire-breathing extremist"—and he has shown the independence that the country is likely to require of him. "Overall, Gorsuch is about the best choice the country can expect from this president; in fact, the nomination was one of the least objectionable things Trump has done since taking office," they write.