Ramesh: Of course, defeating a Democrat filibuster of a Supreme Court justice is not only a prudential argument, but it is the understood purpose of this entire discussion. The Republican record is poor, and some assume it will improve if the nominee is to the Supreme Court, creating pressure on Democrats to relent. I hope they’re right. But I’ve seen no evidence or argument to persuade me that the Democrats lack 40 votes in such a case. The Democrat caucus is overwhelmingly liberal, and relenting on such a high profile fight is just as likely to cause political difficulty in their own liberal/Democrat base as it is likely to diminish the intensity of opposition among moderates. Indeed, I expect further entrenchment by the Democrats when the stakes are raised. Time will tell. As for Larry Tribe, that would be a bitter pill indeed, but such is the consequence, in my view, of the election of a President Hillary Clinton. Besides, our history is replete with two centuries of swallowing bitter pills, even without the Senate minority invoking the filibuster respecting judicial nominees.