[sphinx]

Republicans should hold hearings on any Obama nominee. Very extensive hearings. And then find reasons for rejection. Or for eternally extended requests for more information. I would focus particularly on the explicit litmus test that any such nominee would have taken, and about which he will by lying when he testifies.

Pick your issue(s). Republicans should not engage in borking, but they should, in a civil and politically compelling way, demonstrate that Obama's pick is constitutionally unsound.

[Olog-hai]

No need to “Bork” when it comes to liberal nominees. Despite abuse of the phrase of late, the truth still has no agenda.

But personally, I have no faith in a GOP “majority” that rubber-stamps a $4.1 trillion “budget” among other collusions.

[Jim Noble]

Very extensive hearings. And then find reasons for rejection

But then they would look mean. Can't have that.

[tanknetter]

No, no hearings.

If a nominee makes it to the floor there’s too much of a chance that enough GOPe moderates will vote the nominee onto the bench.

[Lumper20]

Sure, hold hearings and ask him what crimes he believes Obama, Holder, Clinton,-— have committed and why.