Their success in tearing down Robert Bork in 1987 taught Democrats that any method was acceptable so long as it advanced their aim of securing power. In 2003, when President George W. Bush was nominating judges, Democrats pioneered the idea of using routine filibusters to stop them; in 2013, when Obama was nominating judges, Democrats invoked the “nuclear option” to prevent others from doing the same. It was a tacit admission that they should have respected the Senate’s long-standing tradition of up-or-down votes for judicial nominees in the first place.

But Democrats did leave themselves one notable loophole, allowing future Supreme Court nominees to be denied an up-or-down vote via a partisan filibuster. It’s a tactic that Democrats had tried before — most recently when they attempted, unsuccessfully, to sink Bush’s nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr. in 2006 — and a tactic, by the way, that Senate Republicans have never employed.

So why did Democrats mount this unprecedented partisan filibuster? Because Gorsuch wasn’t qualified? No, our colleagues agree he’s well-qualified. Their objection was really that a president of a different party had nominated him — and because hard-left groups like those I warned about back in February demanded it. Some Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), even mused openly about holding the seat vacant indefinitely. So it didn’t really matter who the nominee was, it became clear that Democrats were determined to deny that person a vote.