While there were many who supported President Donald Trump’s choice for Supreme Court pick, Judge Neil Gorsuch of the Tenth Circuit, to take the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, there were those who did not.

Monday, Democrats reached the needed votes to stop Gorsuch's nomination under current chamber rules allowing the Democratic caucus the 41 votes needed to hold a Filibuster against the Supreme Court nominee. The four Senators refusing to give their support to Judge Gorsuch were Mark Warner from Virginia, Chris Coons of Delaware, Patrick Leahy from Vermont, and Dianne Feinstein from California.

First time in U.S. history

Last night, for the first time in American history, the U.S. Senate undermined the Supreme Court and the rule of law and turned the highest court in the land into a political committee. In order to end the filibuster, Republicans holding a 52-48 majority – including the four Democrats voting with them – needed a total of 60 votes.

Called a “Nuclear Option” Republicans will now opt to change Senate rules allowing them to lower the needed votes from 60 to 51 so they can advance Supreme Court nominees. There are two senators who remain undecided, but even if both sided with the Republicans, there still would not be enough votes to stop the filibuster.

'Nuclear Option' gives Republicans all they need

Republicans now feel the nuclear option is their only choice. This will give Trump's party all it needs to eliminate the Senate's requirement of some bipartisanship in order to advance Gorsuch and other such nominees. Should Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell use the nuclear option, then in order to change the rules a simple majority of 51 votes would suffice.

Discuss this news on Eunomia

Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley insisted he would do whatever it took to get Gorsuch on the Supreme Court. Trying to warn Democrats against a filibuster, Senator Lindsay Graham said it would only cause Republicans to change rules, a move he said will haunt the Senate for decades.

One must ask the question, is Scalia's Republican replacement worth the collapse of the U.S. democratic order as we have come to know it?