- Because he's going to live forever - Because he supported Hobby Lobby's decision to not pay for contraception in their health plan (hobby lobby v sebelius) - Because he broadly interpreted the right for the government to endorse religious displays (American Atheists Inc. v. Davenport) - Because he's a strict constitutionalist - Because he wrote an entire book against assisted suicide - Because he was Antonin Scalia's fishing buddy - Because he clerked for Kennedy, which worries Democrats that he won't just be conservative, he'll be conservative with the ability to influence one of the liberals
There and Four are at direct odds with eachother so crazy. The rest of it seems like personal disagreements between Dems and Repubs. I feel like the only reason to block a nomination with a fillibuster would be to stop someone who would actually be bad for the office and would otherwise be negligent to allow to sit the position. Not because you don't really agree with them politically. But hey, if I was in the Senate I would be one of the compromising people.
The hope, of course, is that any given supreme court justice will be impartial and do his damnedest to clarify the law without any partisanship. The fear, of course, is that the minute you confirm a justice he's gonna become an ideological tempest. I seriously doubt the Republicans expected John Roberts to uphold Obamacare based on interstate commerce clauses but here we are. As far as the filibuster, there are a few thoughts: (1) it's gonna die anyway, might as well make the Republicans responsible (2) If the Trump presidency becomes more visibly illegitimate, the odds of the Republicans going to the mattresses for its supreme court pick becomes less likely (3) if they do get it, whoever has the balls gets to take another run at FDR-style court packing (4) what's the point of having filibuster power if you're afraid that you'll lose it by using it (5) Ruling to destroy the filibuster might work out about as well as ruling to approve Trumpcare so let's see if the Republicans have the stones It's parliamentary warfare, for sure. However, the Democratic argument that if Merrick Garland didn't get confirmed because Obama only had a year left in office, sure as shit Gorsuch doesn't get a vote because Trump was installed by the Russians. This is pretty much the very definition of "politics."