"If that standard was used in the past, many conservatives would have surely filibustered Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsberg. They would have looked not at her qualifications, but rather her legal and political philosophy. From a subjective view, she was clearly out of the mainstream of American jurisprudence. ..."
Dear Senator Graham,
I agree that filibusters on nominations are an impermissible shift in the balance of powers between the President and the Senate. However, would please explain to me why a conservative Senator is required to endorse a nomination that is "clearly outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence."?
You seem to be admitting that GOP Senators cast votes that are contrary to their principles.
Not really. The principle in play is that "elections matter". Barring qualifications issues, personal issues, or other unknown problems that prevent a nominee from adjudicating fairly, the President gets the benefit of the doubt.
The philosophy issue is a direct challenge to the constitutional process, where advise and consent was meant to ensure proper vetting, and not be a check on the inner workings of the nominee's mind.