The reaction of RAFOs resident right was a given, but it speaks volumes that neither you nor see a way to justify this; I do not even care to try.

I think (or rather, Political Wire and Electoral-Vote.com have convinced me) this is as simple as the Dems being as captive to their polarized base as Republicans are to theirs: Declaring undying, uncompromising and categorical opposition to All Things GOP because the base will accept no less means even an eminently qualified uncontroversial SCOTUS nomination must be rejected on its source rather than his many merits.

How absurd is this? Just two weeks ago Political Wire was linking articles suggesting Gorsuchs membership in a church that tolerates homosexuals might make the far RIGHT the sole obstacle to confirmation otherwise inevitable since so many Senate Dems had already conceded there is no valid reason to reject him. But evidently there is a single invalid reason for both socially conservatives to swallow their prudishness and vote for him as a single bloc AND opposition to him by all Democrats (who should be "thanking God" for a nomination by Trump instead of one by the VP who supports behavioral modification therapy for homosexuals.)

The bottom line is that rejecting a judge who is "supremely" qualified (in several senses) and has no blots on his record, simply because one disagrees with his politics, is unreasonable and itself judicial activism. We are not even talking about whether he would reaffirm previously settled SCOTUS rulings if they were challenged during his tenure, only his status as generally "too conservative." Well, that is part of why we have elections, and that has long been a broadly understand fact of politics in America (et al.) Contrary to popular belief, this is not a new thing; it goes back at least as far as the Taney Courts ruling against Dred Scott, and that was so long ago it was a primary cause of the Civil War. Talk about "judicial activism:" One of Scotts lawyers who argued his case at the SCOTUS was ONE OF THE JUSTICES BROTHERS (rather than recusing himself for that reason, said brother cast one of the two dissenting votes in Scotts favor.) It is hard to imagine Gorsuch (or anyone else) pulling anything like that.

As far as your strategic and philosophical analyses, I completely concur: Gorsuch is not so "extreme" as to be worth fighting over, and giving the narrow Senate majority cause to end the filibuster for judicial nominations now will also eliminate it for any future nominee who IS that extreme and might be replacing, say, octogenarian and two-time cancer survivor Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who dismissed calls to retire while Obama was president and Dems held the Senate six years ago by publicly stating her confidence Hillary would be the next president: Poor "judgement"...? )

Then again, I still believe filibusters

1)should be ACTUAL, forcing senators to discuss to death an issue by DISCUSSING that ISSUE. Historically, this has always focused voter attention on underexamined measures and only ever produced two outcomes: The measures

a) many serious flaws become so well known public outcry ensures its withdrawal without even need of a vote or

b) utter lack of such flaws reduces opponents to reading their grannys biscuit recipe into the Congressional Record in lieu of ACTUAL opposition, revealing all its opposition to be base and baseless, so public outcry ensures its immediate passage.

2) should be reserved for LEGISLATION (i.e. actual language and provisions to be discussed, negotiated, revised, amended and either corrected or dismissed) not nominations of individual people to individual offices (i.e. when nothing is negotiable: The person—with all their virtues and vices—either does or does not assume the office.)

The filibuster was not created as a road block, but a delaying tactic to ensure wildly popular but truly WILD bills do not become the law of the land until/unless their unforeseen/ignored dangers were identified, publicized and addressed. Filibustering nominations is just absurd, whoever the beneficiaries and victims (the latter of which include the entire nation, which is the whole problem.) Until they were ended for all non-SCOTUS nominations, it had become customary for DOZENS of federal judge seats to remain empty (and the federal courts correspondingly overwhelmed) for entire administrations. That only encouraged future filibusters until we arrived at the spectacle of Senate Dems insisting on filibusters because to prevent Bush the Younger filling a huge swathe of the federal judiciary because Senate Republicans had kept them open throughout the entire Clinton administration.

In other words, what happened with Garland being denied even a HEARING for an entire year until Trumps election, followed by Dems pledging to filibuster HIS nominee to the same seat out of sheer spite, is just the natural end of things. Once all inferior nominations were off the table, it was fairly obvious the stakes would be raised to the SCOTUS by default. And the solution is the same as it was for other federal judiciary positions and the Cabinet: End nomination filibusters completely and permanently. And everyone who dislikes the resulting appointees should run a better election campaign two years from now.