Judge Neil Gorsuch can expect a stiff battle in getting his nomination to the Supreme Court approved by the Senate. That is simply the way the game is played these days.

On Sunday we wrote about the difference between Democrats in Congress offering opposition and obstruction. We realize, of course, that obstruction goes two ways. Republicans in Congress made it their goal to limit Barack Obama to one term, and when they failed that, to do nothing Obama suggested. The refusal to even give a hearing to Merrick Garland, Obama’s Supreme Court nominee to replace Antonin Scalia, is the ultimate obstructionism.

Democrats will undoubtedly throw as many roadblocks to Gorsuch as they can, in the latest round of tit-for-tat that started when the Democrats savaged Robert Bork, President Ronald Reagan’s nominee to the Supreme Court, in 1987. So extreme was the attack on one of the top judicial minds in the country, resulting in his rejection, that “getting Borked” made its way into the political lexicon.

Since then, it seems not enough that Supreme Court nominees have the wisdom of Solomon. They have to fit some pre-conceived “slot” on the court that their predecessor fit.

In that regard, Gorsuch seems to be a fit for Scalia’s brand of conservatism. He is regarded as a solidly conservative judge, a strict interpreter of the Constitution, an outstanding writer of legal opinions, and someone who is eerily similar to Scalia in his opinions.

He will face backlash from the Republican blockade of Obama’s nominee, but in the end he should be considered on his merits.

And somehow, maybe in this confirmation, maybe in some other issue, Congress — Republicans and Democrats alike — needs to get over its “Whatever it is that the other side proposes, I’m against it!” attitude.