[Huck]

Yep, the Dems can vote against a nominee for whatever reasons they can get the media to support.

So can Republicans. They just choose not to, and lie to their supporters that it can't be/ shouldn't be done. Hence we get Justice Ginsburg.

That's why the other candidates conservatives clamor for were not nominated.

We don't know that to be true. The president said he picked the best candidate. Was he lying?

It's a shame the Senate is a democratic institution- it no longer has the power to keep the Court from being democratic.

It's no different than it has ever been. That's what the Rutledge story demonstrates. What's a shame is that the GOP lies to its supporters while doing nothing.

[mrsmith]

If Rutledge was nominated to an elected Senate, like we have now, he would have been confirmed with high praise. The Jay Treaty was extremely unpopular, though extremely wise.

The case that a demonstrably undemocratic nominee would have been confirmed- without senators agreeing to the Constitutional Option- is fanciful.

[mosquitobite]

They can oppose for whatever reason they want. It's the not getting an up or down vote that is the difference.

One thing that has bothered me though is the "blue slips" that the Republicans used to use to hold up nominees. They did away with those when they got into power and therefore the only way the Dems could stop a nominee from going forward was to filibuster. So while the filibuster was unprecedented, we are as much to blame, and just as guilty...