The Russians have been interested in the Gorsuch vote:

http://www.propornot.com/p/the-list.html

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/12/13/wheres-proof-calls-grow-declassify-evidence-alleged-russian-hack
	Where's the Proof? Calls Grow to Declassify Evidence of Alleged Russian Hack

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/03/25/blocking-gorsuch-matters-now-more-ever
	Blocking Gorsuch Matters Now More Than Ever

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/03/29/these-are-16-senators-still-undecided-about-filibustering-neil-gorsuch
	"Any Democrat selling out by rubber-stamping Trump's takeover of the Supreme Court should expect to hear from their constituents loud and clear"

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2010/03/07/nuclear-option-better-reconciliation
	‘Nuclear Option’ Better Than Reconciliation

https://pastebin.com/3NB0LmFX


Generally, Russia's influence operations include efforts to curtail bipartisanship in American Government and society. For Gorsuch, their propaganda suggests they hope the Senate will end the 60-vote rule for confirming Supreme Court justices.

Some Congresspeople have echoed Russia's propaganda regarding Gorsuch:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html
    Reid first faced pressure on this issue from junior Democrats four years ago, particularly Sen. Jeff Merkley, a former speaker of the Oregon state House, who became the point person for growing the anti-filibuster movement. But Reid repeatedly rejected their effort as too radical.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/blumenthal-democrats-will-force-cloture-vote-on-gorsuch/article/2613626

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/20/sen-richard-blumenthal-ill-use-every-tool-oppose-g/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing-to-focus-today-on-testimony-from-friends-foes/2017/03/23/14d21116-0fc7-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/mcconnell-nuclear-option-helps-senate-mccain-whoever-says-that-is-a-stupid-idiot/2017/04/05/d9d73aec-1a1a-11e7-9887-1a5314b56a08_story.html
	On one side is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who says that once Democrats filibuster Judge Neil Gorsuch, the GOP’s unilateral response to confirm him on a simple majority vote will take senators “back to what was the tradition in the Senate” for confirming Supreme Court justices.

	It will be, McConnell says, a good thing for the Senate.

	...

	Now, the sides have changed. McConnell has gone from hating the filibuster (2005) to supporting it (2013) to again trying to abolish it (2017) — an evolving set of positions that correlate with which party had the majority. Schumer has, coincidentally, held the exact opposite position of McConnell each step along the way.

(One thing I have to add: Both McConnell and Schumer should know that the concept of a political and party leader isn't in the Constitution either, and the Founders thought Congress would avoid being dominated by factions.)


These Congressmen should make sure they're not being influenced by the Kremlin in any way.


Sen. Graham and Sen. McCain help explain why Russia might want the Senate to enact the "nuclear option:"

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/21/the-filibuster-fight-ain-t-over.html
    Of course, the big question facing many senators was what would happen if Republicans took control of the Senate after 2014 elections—if not sometime further in the future. Apparently, one McConnell aide jibed, “I’m looking forward to President Rubio stacking the courts.”

    Democratic supporters of the move were more sanguine. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), who had supported filibuster reform since he was first elected in 2010, felt confident that if Democrats were in the minority, “We can block an antithetical or abhorrent nominee based on the merits of the nominee without needing to resort to obstruction.”

    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) warned that the presidential nominees for judgeships would be more ideological and more partisan in the future and that process would be more like nominees for the State Department. In Graham’s opinion, the filibuster was a powerful check to prevent the government from passing bad legislation. “Just think of the nutty ideas we had that they stopped and nutty ideas that they had that we stopped” said Graham. Now, the South Carolina senator thought there were no more checks to keep the level of partisan influence on the Senate from “going through the roof.”

    Graham’s warnings of increased partisanship though paled compared to those of John McCain who warned apocalyptically, “When you change the rules with a simple majority, there are no rules and that’s the way it’s going to be.”


With the state of our politics today, any rule or custom that encourages Presidents and the Senate to act in a more bipartisan way is precious. Instead of ending the 60-vote rule for Supreme Court picks, the Senate might be better-off if they restored the 60-vote rule for cabinet nominations and never touched it again. Some point out that the 60-vote rule wasn't in the Constitution, but the Founders didn't expect Congress to be dominated by two factions.

The Gorsuch vote will be tough. On the one hand, Gorsuch is well-qualified and well liked, and Republicans have had tough luck in the past getting such a respected nominee from the Trump Administration.

On the other hand, with the increased level of Russian influence in the Trump Administration, there is an increased possibility that Gorsuch is a Russian agent:


https://pastebin.com/wMP94HAC


McConnell says "Democrats would filibuster Ruth Bader Ginsburg if President Trump nominated her." (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/327454-mcconnell-dems-would-filibuster-ruth-bader-ginsburg-if-trump-nominated-her)

He has his reasons for saying this, but I think he's touching on the truth. So far, maybe due to partisan biases and Russia's influence operations, Republicans have been less wary of Russian influence on the Trump Administration than Democrats have. The nomination of Putin allies like Tillerson might have been traumatic for Democrats (and some Republicans):

https://pastebin.com/ztcmVk5MA

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/21/politics/tillerson-to-skip-nato-visit-russia/

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/05/politics/kfile-rubio-tillerson-syria-attack/


Trump's warmth towards Putin and the Russian influence in his Administration has likely created an instinctive distrust of policies and people he promotes, especially among Democrats.

Other than this, there is a worry that both Republicans and Democrats might slip into see important matters like the Supreme Court or our Nation's laws as a battleground for partisan conflict.

But the Senate's ability to "advise and consent" the President on his nominees is meant for the benefit of the country, not winning partisan victories:


http://dlj.law.duke.edu/2015/05/advice-and-consent-in-the-appointments-clause-from-another-historical-perspective/
	A central premise of this paper is that the brilliance of the Appointments Clause has become obscured by dysfunction past and present. The Senate’s deference to the President’s nominees in the past was just as damaging to effective government as some of the political polarization and obstruction of the current day. In other words, the appointments process has changed over time, but not necessarily for the worse. Historical rubber-stamping of nominees by the Senate, with lightning-fast approval, is not preferable to careful and reflective consideration and the opportunity for collaborative competency between two branches of government. Yet, today’s new appointments process is fraught with peril, from wholesale refusal to act in a timely manner to staged public hearings designed to reveal nothing. Some of these new tactics are inconsistent with the process values of the clause and have a far-reaching impact.

	...

	As expectations grow that partisan civilians will become partisan judges and officials, pressures to fill specific roles increase accordingly. [63] In addition, the partisanship of the Senate hearings likely reflects the lack of a true dialogue in other parts of the political process, providing a barometer for the state of our democracy.

	...


	Second, the real danger today from political polarization is not the use of ideology in reviewing nominees, but rather the widespread seepage of poison from partisanship, which produces wholesale strategies of obstruction and a plethora of vacancies. These vacancies, particularly for judgeships in the federal courts, have a significant impact on the operability of the government and justice system.

	While Professor Weaver does not believe a fundamental shift in the process has occurred, the gridlock from political partisanship shows no signs of abating. Further, the impact of social media and the 24/7 news cycle on the process cannot be overstated. The process is more public than ever—but also more staged as well. Recent nomination proceedings appear to be less about the truth than about managing public perceptions.

	Despite an apparent fundamental shift in the appointments process, there is hope. Through well-grounded “in-house” Senate rules, legislation designed to streamline the process, and senators and an Executive who take a long view, the fundamental shift that has occurred can be for the better.


Both parties face pressure to vote their party line:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/joe-biden-merrick-garland-republican-senators-236720
	Former Vice President Joe Biden said as the Republicans were blocking President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, nine GOP senators told him they knew they were doing the wrong thing.

	“I call 17 Republicans and say, ‘You know better,’” Biden said Thursday. “Nine of them said to me, ‘You’re right Joe, but I can’t do anything about it because if I do the Koch brothers or somebody is going to drop $5 million into my race and I’ll lose my primary.’”

	Biden, speaking at the University of Pennsylvania, said lax campaign financing rules have played into the devolution of Congress.

	“You want to change American politics tomorrow? Pass public financing of elections,” Biden said.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/gop-lawmakers-jim-demint-heritage-foundation-ratings-114672
	Long-simmering tensions between The Heritage Foundation, its sister political arm and House Republicans erupted Tuesday during a weekly meeting of conservatives, as GOP lawmakers confronted the nonprofit group’s leader behind closed doors.

	Several Republican lawmakers unleashed on Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint — a former South Carolina senator — griping mostly about Heritage Action’s legislative scorecard. The Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action are related groups, but the latter advocates for policy and has a scorecard that judges lawmakers’ voting records on Capitol Hill.

	...

	Scott also told POLITICO: “Coming from the farm, my granddad would say there are some people who want to prove a point and others who want to make a difference. I feel like Heritage sometimes is trying to prove a point while conservatives in the House are trying to make a difference.”

https://www.press.umich.edu/5181079/getting_primaried

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/polarized-politics-in-congress-began-in-the-1970s-and-has-been-getting-worse-ever-since/


But this is a disservice to the public. If our elected representatives are making decisions based on the whims of party leadership, demands of campaign donors, or fear of being the "odd man out" in their party, they're leaving less and less room to make decisions based on what's best for the country.

It is hoped both parties can resist the pull to vote on Gorsuch for any other reasons than his ability to serve the country. If they believe the possibility that Gorsuch is a Russian agent is serious, they can factor that into their vote.

Most Americans want Congress to work together. Increasingly, both parties are disliked by the public, support for independents is high (http://www.people-press.org/2016/04/28/gops-favorability-rating-edges-lower/, http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/poll-independent-against-trump-clinton-223319), and most Americans believe Congress doesn't vote in their interests (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx). These trends can't continue forever. This will be a test.

We might never know whether or not Gorsuch is a Russian agent. Knowing the Russians, prolonging an exhausting fight around Gorsuch and getting Republicans' hopes up only for Gorsuch to turn out to be a Russian spy is something they would do. Until Russia's influence on our politics can be rooted-out and ended, Congress' job will continue to be stressful.