WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Democrats elevated their attacks against President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Wednesday, portraying him as an ally of the powerful and an enemy of the weak as an explosive showdown loomed on the Senate floor. Republicans defended Judge Neil Gorsuch, accusing Democrats of trying to block him out of frustration over Trump’s election victory.

“Democrats would filibuster Ruth Bader Ginsburg if President Donald Trump nominated her,” said Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., naming one of the more liberal sitting justices. “There is simply no principled reason to oppose this exceptional, exceptional Supreme Court nominee.”

Democrats begged to differ, returning again and again to McConnell’s decision last year to deny consideration to then-President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, who was ignored for nearly a year by Senate Republicans after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

Instead McConnell kept Scalia’s seat open, a calculation that is now paying off hugely for Republicans and Trump, who will be able to claim the biggest victory of his presidency to date if Gorsuch is confirmed on Friday as expected.

“For the first time in history, we are considering a nominee for a stolen Supreme Court seat, and that alone should be reason for everyone who cares about this institution to turn down this nominee,” Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., said on the Senate floor as he wrapped up a 15-and-a-half-hour overnight talk-a-thon to underscore his party’s opposition to Gorsuch. “This is an extreme nominee from the far right who doesn’t believe in the fundamental vision of ‘We the People.'”

First, though, looms showdown votes Thursday, when 44 Democrats and independents intend to try to block Gorsuch by denying Republicans the 60 votes needed to proceed to final passage. McConnell and Republicans intend to respond by unilaterally changing Senate rules to remove the 60-vote filibuster requirement for Gorsuch and all future Supreme Court nominees, reducing it to a simple majority in the 100-member Senate.

The pending developments prompted much hand-wringing from senators on both sides of the aisle about the future of the Senate as a bipartisan and deliberative body, though they themselves were in position to prevent it from happening and failed to do so.

Moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said roughly 10 senators of both parties worked over the weekend to come up with a deal to stave off the so-called “nuclear option,” as the rules change is known, but couldn’t come to agreement. Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware was at the center of talks on the Democratic side. In 2005, a bipartisan deal headed off GOP plans to remove the filibuster barrier for lower-court nominees, although in 2013 Democrats took the step instead, leaving the filibuster in place only for Supreme Court justices.

With Trump in the White House and political polarization at an extreme, senators working toward a compromise did not appear to have much support from leadership and weren’t able to finalize a deal.

“We just couldn’t get there,” Collins said.

And so, with the fight over Gorsuch, the Senate is on the verge of killing off the Supreme Court filibuster, the one remaining vestige of bipartisanship on presidential appointments. For now the filibuster barrier on legislation will remain, though many fear it could be the next to go.

“I fear that someday we will regret what we are about to do. In fact, I am confident we will,” said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. “It is imperative we have a functioning Senate where the rights of the minority are protected regardless of which party is in power at the time.”

Nonetheless, McCain was prepared to vote with McConnell on the rules change, saying he felt he had no choice.

Gorsuch now counts 55 supporters in the Senate: the 52 Republicans, along with three moderate Democrats from states that Trump won last November — Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Donnelly of Indiana. A fourth Senate Democrat, Michael Bennet from Gorsuch’s home state of Colorado, has said he will not join in the filibuster against Gorsuch but has not said how he will vote on confirmation.

Merkley’s lengthy speech, while not technically a filibuster because it did not prevent or delay a planned vote, did qualify as the eighth-longest floor speech in Senate history at 15 hours and 27 minutes, according to the Senate historical office.

Merkley devoted part of his floor remarks to highlighting plagiarism charges against Gorsuch that surfaced at the last minute in documents provided to The Associated Press and other news organizations, showing similarities between Gorsuch’s writings about assisted suicide and earlier pieces by other authors he did not credit. Merkley questioned whether Republicans were moving quickly to end debate on Gorsuch’s nomination “before that information becomes public.”

The White House pushed back at the allegations, which spokesman Steven Cheung dismissed as a “baseless, last-second smear” that had been discredited and refuted.

Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein issued the following statement:

“I rise today, as the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, to speak about the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States.

In committee, at the outset of the hearings, I remarked that our job was not to evaluate legal doctrines and theories, or review Judge Gorsuch’s record in a vacuum. Our job is really to assess how this nominee’s decisions will affect the American people and whether he will protect the legal and constitutional rights of all Americans. So I’ve had this in mind throughout the entire process.

Let me begin with an aside. I represent a large state, and I do pay close attention to constituent letters, calls and emails. A weekly report lets me know on what issues people are focused and what they think. And I take this feedback very seriously.

In general, my barometer has been that when I receive over 30,000 calls, emails or letters—that’s when I know an issue is reasonably meaningful to many people in the state. To be clear, I don’t base my final judgement on an issue or nominee solely on the numbers of calls and letters I receive. However, this is a representative democracy. So I find this to be an important measure of what California constituents are thinking.

When it comes to this nomination, so far my office has received a total of 112,309 calls, emails and letters from California constituents—92,799, or 83 percent, oppose this nominee, and 19,510, or 17 percent, support this nominee.

Let me just read a few of the [emails.]

One constituent from Silverado, California wrote: “In 1971, when abortion was illegal, I was forced to have a child at age 16. That was 46 years ago. With Gorsuch, we would step back into that world where women and girls have no choice but an illegal and unsafe abortion or become a mother. That’s wrong. The choice is untenable and dangerous. Filibuster Gorsuch and do whatever it takes.”

Now I was a college student in the 1950s and I remember very much what life was like before a woman had the right to privacy to control her reproductive system according to Roe v. Wade.

Another constituent from San Diego emailed, and I quote, “As a beneficiary of the right to marry 3 ½ years ago, I personally understand how important Supreme Court decisions are. I also attended a segregated elementary school when I was a little boy. I do not trust that Neil Gorsuch would advocate for the best interests of women & minorities. Please do not confirm him.”

A woman from Richmond, California wrote: “I believe that we, the people, will have a difficult time getting fair and equal treatment with Gorsuch being on the Supreme Court. He will help the rich corporations, and the poor and middle-class will suffer.

Now I don’t comment on any of these because none of these are sacrosanct, but they are opinions.

And, Brandon Gregg from Burlingame, California wrote: “The Republicans did not give Merrick Garland a hearing, instead waiting until Trump could propose a young, right-leaning judge who will take our country backwards. Gorsuch will not advance the agenda of human rights within our Constitution, but will plunge us back into the past where minorities had little protection, women did not have equal rights, people of color were denied the right to vote, and protections for all people that we take for granted, did not exist. This is not the world I want for myself, my children and my grandchildren. Filibuster Gorsuch’s confirmation. Please.”

Bottom line: Californians are letting me know, loud and clear, that who sits on the Supreme Court matters.

Unfortunately, up to now, much of the press coverage on this nomination has been about politics and process. In contrast, little has been said about how the Supreme Court affects the lives of Americans, their families and their communities.

So let me say, in the past 24 years that I have been a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have seen that the Supreme Court is, in fact, the last word in so many areas—the personal rights of all Americans, including who they can marry and whether women have the right to privacy that allows them to control their own bodies.

The Supreme Court determines whether decisions about health care will be determined by families or businesses.

The Supreme Court has the final say on whether states and localities will be able to pass laws that make it harder for low-income people, people of color, seniors, and students to vote.

The Supreme Court will decide whether corporations are able to pollute our air and water with impunity.

And, it’s the Supreme Court that will be the final word on executive authority—whether it’s used to water board, detain individuals indefinitely or overreach in other ways.

Each year, more than 350,000 civil and criminal cases are filed in federal courts. The Supreme Court hears arguments for only about 80 cases a session and makes decisions on approximately 50 more cases without hearing arguments.

Now this means the Supreme Court only hears a very small percentage of cases—less than 0.02 percent.

Before the current vacancy, the most significant questions were closely decided by 5-4, with five votes coming from Republican-appointed justices.

These include important decisions that affect our elections, like Shelby County and Citizens United—decisions that weakened the power of average voters by expanding the role of dark money and gutting a key provision of the Voting Rights Act.

We also saw a 5-4 decision in Heller that overturned 70 years of precedent on the Second Amendment and blocked the District of Columbia’s commonsense gun regulations.

As my colleague Senator Whitehouse outlined in the Judiciary Committee, in the last several years, this Supreme Court has issued an additional 11 5 to 4 decisions that promote the rights of corporations over the rights of everyday people—on topics as wide ranging as age discrimination and harassment to limiting access to courts and juries.

So, who sits on the Supreme Court matters.

Just look at some of the key cases that have come down since this vacancy arose last year. For example, the Supreme Court deadlocked, 4-4, on a case to determine whether unions are able to fight for fair pay and benefits for all workers by requiring them to contribute to a union’s actions on their behalf.

We know this issue will go back to the Supreme Court. If, next time, the court rules against unions like the California Teachers Association, it will be overturning a 40-year precedent, known as “agency shop,” and will permit an assault on workers’ rights.

Also last year, the Supreme Court heard the case on North Carolina’s law that reduced early voting days, eliminated same-day registration, and established new, restrictive photo ID requirements to vote.

The Fourth Circuit struck down North Carolina’s law, concluding it had, and I quote, “targeted African Americans with almost surgical precision,” end quote. Yet, when the Supreme Court took it up, they deadlocked, 4-4.

Who sits on that court matters.

After four days of hearings and reviewing Judge Gorsuch’s record, we have learned that he indeed has strong views of what the law should be and how it should be interpreted.

While Judge Gorsuch was not responsive to many questions, he did tell us he is “happy to be called” an originalist and that he “embrace[d]” the term.

He also stated that he believes judges should look to the “original public meaning” of the Constitution when they decide what one of its provisions mean.

According to him, and I quote, the Constitution “isn’t some inkblot on which litigants may project their hopes and dreams . . . , but a carefully crafted text judges are charged with applying according to its original public meaning.” Original public meaning.

That takes us back to 13 colonies, 4 million Americans and 1789.

I find this “originalist” judicial philosophy to be deeply troubling. It essentially means that judges and courts should evaluate all of our constitutional rights and privileges as they were understood in 1789.

To freeze our understanding of the Constitution in 1789, I think, ignores the framers’ intent. But more importantly, it would ignore the vibrancy and growth of our nation.

We are no longer a society that condones slavery.

We no longer permit segregation.

We don’t allow child labor.

We recognize that women not only deserve an education, but can be leaders in business, government and their homes.

We cannot turn back the clock 230 years.

As Justice Brennan said, asking judges to resolve legal questions by looking only to what people believed when our country was founded, was, and this is a quote, “little more than arrogance cloaked as humility,” end quote. And that while, quote, “proponents of this facile historicism justify it as the depoliticization of the judiciary, the political underpinnings of such a choice should not escape notice,” end quote. After all, “[t]hose who would restrict [legal claims] to the values of 1789 specifically articulated in the Constitution turn a blind eye to social progress….” This is [Justice] Brennan’s speech in 1985 at Georgetown University.

This is an important point that I think bears repeating: A judge’s decision to adopt an originalist philosophy is inherently political because it discounts the expansion of constitutional protections beyond white men who owned property. And yes, that’s the way it was back then.

The U.S. Constitution, I deeply believe, is a living document intended to evolve as our country evolves. We’re not supposed to ignore social progress—and I don’t believe the founders of our country ever intended us to do so.

Another concern with Judge Gorsuch’s record is his extreme, conservative view of the federal government. For example, he’s indicated he believes the long-standing legal doctrine that allows agencies to write rules to effectively implement laws should be overturned. And that doctrine, as the chair well knows, is the Chevron doctrine. And it was discussed in committee.

Chevron was itself a unanimous opinion, authored by a liberal, Justice Stevens, and joined by conservatives including Chief Justice Burger. This legal doctrine has been in place for decades and has been cited more than 15,000 times.

If Chevron is overturned, as Judge Gorsuch has advocated, many important laws that Congress has passed would become ineffective.

And I want to give you a personal example.

In 2007, Senator Olympia Snowe and I finally passed legislation, thanks to Senators Ted Stevens and Dan Inouye, to increase the mileage efficiency of cars.

This was critical to address because pollution was clouding up our cities, and it was important to improve the functioning of our automobiles.

Our legislation required the Department of Transportation to set standards so that fuel economy would increase at least 10 miles per gallon over ten years. That’s the time we could foresee and continue rising after that.

We instructed the agency to achieve, and I quote, the “maximum feasible average fuel economy,” end quote, and directed the Secretary of Transportation to consider, quote, “ technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the government on fuel economy, and the need of the United States to conserve energy,” end quote. That’s directly from the bill.

Here’s the result. It has just been announced that this program will raise fuel economy to more than 50 miles per gallon by 2025. I think the specifics were 54 miles to the gallon.

This would have been impossible in 2007, when we were trying to pass the bill. We could not possibly understand, 10 years hence, technical details of specific automobile efficiency technologies and how they would develop in the decades to come.

Federal agencies simply must play a role. We need their technical expertise and ongoing involvement to ensure the legislation we pass is implemented effectively—as [intended] by Congress.

In committee, I discussed Judge Gorsuch’s textualist view. This means he believes statutes should be interpreted only by, quote, “the plain meaning of the language,” end quote.

Combined, this judicial philosophy includes: One: Limiting laws and statutes to a dictionary definition that he selected. Two: Reversing precedent to say that agencies cannot interpret ambiguous laws. And three: Reinstating a legal doctrine to further limit agency experts.

Taken together, these points would require Congress to pass bills so that they are either so specific they would be very limited in effect, or so broad they would actually be meaningless.

For example, Senator Collins and I have been working on legislation that would require the FDA to ensure the safety of personal care products, such as we all use– shampoo, deodorant, cosmetics, shaving creams, lotions. The FDA doesn’t do it in this country. But they do it Europe. And our bill asks the FDA to evaluate the safety of the chemicals that are put in these products.

In committee, we had testimony about a shampoo that once used, hair fell out of the individuals head, and many thousands of complaints had been registered.

Congress does not have the expertise to do the chemical evaluations, and without deference to the FDA, the bill would have to be thousands of pages long to cover every contingency for every product made by hundreds of companies. And that’s simply not workable.

If Congress can no longer rely on federal agencies, and if all laws can only be interpreted by limited dictionary definitions, then government would have no ability to regulate markets, defend against a financial crisis, protect workers, build safe roads or safeguard our environment.

We depend on the scientists, the biologists, the economists, the engineers and other experts to help ensure our laws are effectively implemented.

And so this is really a dastardly controlling mechanism.

Under the arguments proposed by Judge Gorsuch, this would no longer occur.

Instead, only congressional action would be able to address these important issues—these rules that agencies write would have to be written by Congress—and even that would be severely limited. Such a radical change in the law would hurt ordinary Americans, certainly their safety and certainly our communities.

Let me say once again, who sits on the Supreme Court matters.

The issues facing our country are consequential and they have a real world impact on all of us. Justices on the Supreme Court must understand that the court’s decisions have real-world consequences for men, women and children across our nation.

Unfortunately, based on Judge Gorsuch’s record at the Department of Justice, his tenure on the bench, his appearance before the Senate, and his written questions for the record, I cannot support this nomination.”

___

Associated Press writers Mark Sherman, Mary Clare Jalonick and Jill Colvin contributed.