[Democratic-Republican]

Oops, you're right about that first sentence. I mis-read you're first paragraph with "traitor" and now see what you meant. Strike that reference from me about "traitor" in my first paragraph, in fact just ignore the whole paragraph. My bad.

However, the rest of my comment is dead-on point, and quite simple to understand. You did reference "constitutionality" and I pointed out that it is perfectly constitutional to examine to Dumbo's appointment, and then summarily dismiss it. Rinse, Repeat until he leaves town. Simple.

The thrust of the comment is to fight the (D)ummies head on and defeat them this time, or else. It is in stark contrast to what you originally ( and still? ) recommended ... surrender.

Surrender is NOT an option. Period.

[Religion and Politics]

Thank you for taking the time to see what I said.

However, I am not suggesting surrender. I think it would be best to let the Constitution direct the process normally and avoid a contrived process which would result in probably the longest vacancy on the SCOTUS in history. I think that would be best for the political process as well, i.e. the General Election.