[Paloma_55]

Conservative Republicans (of which I am a proud member) have only two choices on the Meirs pick.

1) Accept the President't nomination gracefully and lobby for him to pick an unabashed conservative judge the next time around.

2) Behave like a hypocritical Democrat and try to stop the confirmation of the president's pick.

The fact is, the president picks, the Senate confirms. If the Republicans do not vote to confirm, they are acknowledging the Democrat's argument that it is OK to vote against a nominee strictly because you are unhappy with their political position.

[jackbenimble]

If the Republicans do not vote to confirm, they are acknowledging the Democrat's argument that it is OK to vote against a nominee strictly because you are unhappy with their political position.

Maybe they are making a principled statement that they don't believe she is a qualified candidate to serve in one of the most powerful offices in the government. That is how I would be voting. I don't care if she is against abortion. Compared to many of the other possible choices she is a legal light weight. She is nowhere near the top of her profession.

[Ditto]

The fact is, the president picks, the Senate confirms.

And for the last 5 years, there was unaminity on this forum that who ever the president picks should be given a full hearing and a vote.

Now it seems some folks want to change the rules.

[republicofdavis]

I disagree with your premise that opposing the pick is equivalent to behaving like a hypocritical Democrat.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

I think you have the process inverted a bit.

The president nominates, then the Senate exercises its prerogative of "advice and consent."

Whether or not the Senate ultimately comes to the conclusion that that nominee is worthy of being confirmed, or does not meet their standards and is rejected, is a matter for that legislative body to decide.