I get that, but I haven't actually seen or heard a lot of things on which they would want to play offense so to speak in terms of SC decisions - the court reached decisions like Obergefell with Scalia on board, and they can do it with Gorsuch replacing him, too. Do you have some things in mind that they were expecting a court with Garland to change? My impression was always more that it was a defensive strategy - in which case it's just common sense to hold their powder dry for now and let Gorsuch pass.

The difference is that the UK does have more than two parties still, and even had a coalition government recently, but I think I see your point. Certainly the polarization spiralling out of control is rapidly diminishing the power and influence of individual senators - the fact that in the 2016 election all elected Senators were of the same party as the electoral college in that state, is a rather ominous one. And indeed, it often seems like many Americans want it that way, nothing happening if the same party doesn't hold all three - gridlock all over, nothing getting done because they feel if the government can act decisively it will only make things worse. That doesn't seem like a sustainable position to me over the long term, especially on things like health care, but maybe I'm wrong...

Interesting read. The voting numbers for Scalia certainly show how much things have changed in three decades.