By Ben Riggleman

At the end of January, President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court. Amid the fireworks of the travel ban and the Commander-in-Chief’s Twitter beefs, it’s easy to overlook the choice; Gorsuch appears mainstream by this administration’s standards. But Supreme Court nominations are always big news, and this one comes with heavy baggage.

The Supreme Court is a small group of unelected officials with extraordinary power. Justices serve from their appointment until they die or choose to retire. Since their job security does not depend on political approval, they are supposed to remain independent and, like secular monks, devote themselves to the pure principles of the law.

Yet the Supreme Court is never isolated, and never apolitical. Its rulings have real-life consequences for Americans at all levels of society. The Court has — to give just three examples — determined the outcome of a presidential election (Bush v. Gore, 2000), dismantled school segregation (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954), and opened the floodgates to corporate money in politics (Citizens United v. FEC, 2010). Today the Court is as bitterly divided as the rest of America on most contentious issues. The justices often split neatly along liberal-conservative lines.

Until 2016, the Roberts Court was divided into conservative and liberal blocs of four justices each. One unpredictable, decisive “swing vote,” Anthony Kennedy, commanded the catbird seat. But then, on the night of Feb. 12, 2016, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia passed away. Scalia had been an unwavering conservative during his 30 years on the Court. His death might have heralded a major shift to the left, had things gone differently.

President Obama’s replacement pick was Merrick Garland, a liberal D.C. Circuit judge whom Politico magazine characterized as having “a penchant for judicial restraint.” Garland was totally qualified and, as even Breitbart was quick to admit, had “earned respect from both sides of the aisle.”

So where’s Garland gone? Here’s what happened: Senate Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, simply refused to hold hearings for him while Obama held office. They argued that presidential appointments made during an election year were illegitimate. And the bridge-burning tactic worked.

(The Constitution does not require the Senate to vote on nominees. Also, the Washington Post noted several historical precedents for the Republicans’ behavior — almost all from the 1800s. Still, the out-of-hand rejection of a moderate, credentialed Court nominee was unheard of in modern U.S. politics.)

So back to Neil Gorsuch: first, is he qualified? The general consensus is yes. He holds degrees from several of the world’s best schools; he’s clerked for Supreme Court justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy, worked at the Department of Justice, and held a judgeship on the 10th Circuit for over a decade. (Sources: Politico, New York Times.) An Atlantic editorial called him “one of the most respected conservative legal intellectuals on the federal bench.”

His judicial philosophy is said to resemble Antonin Scalia’s. He supports the freer exercise of religion and questions the regulatory powers of the federal government. He showed both stances when he ruled that the ACA couldn’t make businesses cover birth control in their employee health-insurance plans. (This ruling was later upheld by the Supreme Court in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, a 5–4 decision.) He strongly opposes assisted suicide. Otherwise, his views on many timely issues are unknown. On LGBT rights, the president’s conflicts of interest, Muslim bans, Citizens United, and much else, Gorsuch has kept his cards close.

The Washington Post described Gorsuch as “a less bombastic version of Scalia” — and more politic: more likely to bring other justices around to his views. He might, due to shared history, exert a strong influence on Anthony Kennedy (who, you’ll remember, is the Court’s great decider).

But can Gorsuch win Democrats’ support to see himself confirmed? Well, as the Times put it, his nomination ignited “a brutal, partisan showdown.” So, in other words, it’ll be tough. Many Democrats consider Garland’s seat stolen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Senate minority leader, has vowed to hold up Gorsuch’s nomination by filibuster — not just on stolen-seat grounds, but out of fears Gorsuch won’t stand up to Trump. (Source: New York Times.)

Republicans have a procedural trick up their sleeve, though. They may use the so-called “nuclear option,” changing Senate rules to allow Gorsuch’s confirmation by a simple majority of 51. The president has already called for this strategy.

Citizens need not be powerless spectators to the Gorsuch battle. We can call our Senators and pressure them either way. Mainers have unique leverage; our senior Senator, Susan Collins, is a Republican who has shown herself responsive to liberal concerns. (Recall the skirmish over Betsy DeVos.) So, if the Supreme Court is something you care about, get involved!