Those knowledgeable of the workings of government understand that the President does NOT control the Senate or the House. He "acquiesced" to nothing since he has no control over the Senate. At least be fair in your attacks.
The Senate raised a 60 vote hurdle that causes the President to limit his short list. I don't care what label you slap on it, cpaitulation, acquiesence, giving up, weak, timid, political reality, "a good thing" (to parphrase Martha Stewert). The President voluntarily limited his list, and voluntarily engaged in "stealth." He has control over those actions, and they were affected by a manifestly unacceptable "hurdle" to confirmation.
Is that attack more fair? Or is it unfair? Is it just the label "acquiesce" that bugs you?
You don't seem to much mind that the Senate has the President by the short hairs.