To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.
"Last paragraph of Federalist 76, do you really want to use this in your argument?
"To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration."
The answer is: Yes, I really would want to use Federalist 76, and the section you quote merely reinforces the point I was trying to make. It is the Senate who is to be the check, not the President's party advisors. In addition, as with any of the Framers explanations of the provisions of their Constitution, Federalist 76 must be taken as a whole, and in context, in order to be meaningful.
Let me reiterate my original point. The Founders' Constitution delegated the authority to the President, with a prescribed process for exercising that authority, which was to include the cooperation and concurrence of the Senate.
In the case now before us, the President has exercised his authority to name the nominee, and the process involves the Senate's hearings and vote (concurrence) in order for the nominee to become a justice.
Nowhere is there a constitutionally prescribed place in that process for citizens to "force" (or even influence) Presidential withdrawal of that nomination prior to Senate action. Federalist 76 explores reasons, as mentioned in my original post, for their reasoning that the authority is to rest with the Executive, with cooperation and concurrence of the Senate.
My further point was that, as citizens who hold to the principle that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and that we, as "conservatives," say we want justices who will abide by its prescriptions so that it may be "conserved," or preserved in all its integrity, then we should be willing to respect and abide by the process it prescribes and let the Senate handle the matter.
Many so-called "intellectuals" among the "talking heads" don't seem to be willing to do that, but would use their media status to try to force the President to withdraw the nomination, some on the grounds that he owes it to his political 'base.'
As individuals, we possess the right to criticize as much as we wish, but pressure from partisan groups to interject their will on a constitutional process is not seemly for those who claim devotion to the Constitution.