It was imperative that political pundits insert themselves into a Constitutional process to prevent an elected President from having his Supreme Court nominee receive an up or down vote by 100 elected Senators? It was imperative that we now forever lose the correct argument that every nominee is entitled to an up or down vote in the senate? I disagree.
Do you have a problem with speech as a part of the process? Please, you're bloviating about "Constitutional process" is a bit much. I guess we're supposed to wait for W to nominate someone then shut-up and let the Senate vote. Miers was unqualified and not up to the job. She was an embarrassment.
I spent election day in a phone bank for W, support him wholeheartedly, but the best favor you can do a friend is to tell him when he's dead wrong. This has nothing to do with the filibuster debate.
An up or down vote is the right of a nominee after Judiciary Committee hearings, not when first submitted by the President. Suppose someone is nominated that it turns out has committed some past or previously unknown crime? What if someone is nominated who falsified his resume? Do we waste time on an up or down vote or hearings for such nominees. The Miers withdrawl has nothing to do with the up or down issue.
This idea that conservatives somehow thwarted the constitutional process by criticizing or opposing the nomination is nonsense. What are pundits expected to do, remain silent? I guess it then follows that conservative pundits should have been unopposed to Ruth Bader Ginsburg so as not to disrupt the constitutional process.