[ColoradoTree]

That's my point.  Strict constructionism does not require the Senate to approve a nominee.

A good argument for why strict constructionism is an incomplete philosophy.  Not all questions are answered in the text of the Constitution, so when we have an impasse like this one, it requires people of good faith to work together to resolve it, as the Constitution envisions.  If the Senate refused to fill numerous vacancies, we could be left with a Supreme Court that lacked a quorum to conduct business.  The mere fact that the Constitution requires a Supreme Court, gives the President the power to nominate, and the Senate the power to confirm, is pretty compelling evidence that we are supposed to cooperate and compromise in order to ensure our Constitution survives.  So, when one side says they won't participate in the process, the process necessarily breaks down.  I see that as a problem, and a dangerous precedent to set.  Do you? 

[ColoradoTree]

That's my point.  Strict constructionism does not require the Senate to approve a nominee.

A good argument for why strict constructionism is an incomplete philosophy.  Not all questions are answered in the text of the Constitution, so when we have an impasse like this one, it requires people of good faith to work together to resolve it, as the Constitution envisions.  If the Senate refused to fill numerous vacancies, we could be left with a Supreme Court that lacked a quorum to conduct business.  The mere fact that the Constitution requires a Supreme Court, gives the President the power to nominate, and the Senate the power to confirm, is pretty compelling evidence that we are supposed to cooperate and compromise in order to ensure our Constitution survives.  So, when one side says they won't participate in the process, the process necessarily breaks down.  I see that as a problem, and a dangerous precedent to set.  Do you?