"But in answer to your question, Constitutionally speaking (and along with advice and counsel of Congress), the President nominating her IS the determining factor in whether or not she is worthy of being nominated."
And the senate, which is an extension of the citizen, is the determining factor as to whether she can be confirmed or not.
So again, what is exactly your point? Once she's been nominated, we shouldn't do our jobs and let our publicn officials know what we really think about her as a nominee?
So it comes back again not to why we would have rather had someone else, but to the question of why she should be considered unacceptable. In other words, what has she done that disqualifies her from serving on the supreme court?
We wouldn't have nominated her and we have lots of reasons for that which can be shared with our Senators. At the same time, I'm not sure any of the reasons we wouldn't have nominated her are valid reasons to deny her confirmation. We don't know how she'll vote. She may not agree with us in crucial areas. But I can't think of a reason she couldn't serve.