[ColoradoTree]

That's my point.  Strict constructionism does not require the Senate to approve a nominee.  I've heard a number of leftists argue that the Constitution mandates approval of Obama's nominee.  So they want to use an inaccurate strict interpretation of the Constitution to argue that the Senate is obligated to confirm any Obama nominee, despite the fact that the nominee will most assuredly be a judicial activist.

A few (OK, several) points:

1. You use terms like "leftist" and "judicial activist."  Those are loaded terms with many meanings, and they suggest to me that you're not really interested in having a debate about ideas.  As far as I'm aware, this is not a right-wing message board; it is a Stanford message board where bright, well-meaning people of all political stripes are welcome. 

2.  What do you mean by judicial activist?  Do you agree with the definition that Chief Justice Roberts offered in his confirmation hearings, which is a judge inclined to give excessive scrutiny to and ultimately overturn laws passed by Congress and signed by the President?  If so, then so-called "strict constructionists" have a pretty strong activist streak of their own, as the Voting Rights Act, Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, the Violence Against Women Act, and the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 would attest.  If you instead mean any judge who recognizes Substantive Due Process, a right to privacy (which underpins our right to medical privacy and the right of women to have abortions), or a belief that the Constitution is a living document and its interpretation can and should change depending on the time in which it is interpreted, then yes, any Democratic nominee (and most past Republican nominees) would be judicial activists by that definition. 

3.  Of course the Senate isn't obliged to confirm any nominee the President offers.  And as someone who I'm sure fits your definition of a "leftist"--I assume all Democrats fit the bill?--I can say that I haven't heard any other Democrat say that the Senate is required to confirm the first nominee.  What I think is true is that the Senate should feel bound by 200+ years of precedent to at least consider the nominee, hold hearings, and give the nominee a vote.  And yes, eventually confirm some nominee. 

4. In addition, senior Senators on Judiciary should take the "advice" part of "advice and consent" seriously and, as Orrin Hatch and others have done in the past, suggest nominees that, while being closer to the President's philosophy than the Senate's, would be less objectionable than others. 

5. My problem here is that in the past, Presidents have been able to submit nominees that ultimately get through the Senate.  Bork's rejection (again, after hearings and a vote) followed by Kennedy's unanimous approval is an example of the process working, where the Senate exercises its prerogative not to confirm a particular nominee in order to help ensure that a more moderate nominee is proposed.  If the President nominated an outspoken liberal here and the Senate rejected him/her but later confirmed a more moderate nominee, I wouldn't complain, as that's what should probably happen with divided government. 

6.  If the Senate refuses to approve any nominee, then wouldn't you agree the system is breaking down and not functioning as the Founders intended?  Refusal to confirm a nominee may not violate any express language in the Constitution, but neither does it make such a move consistent with the Constitutional order.  If the Senate follows through with its threat to not consider any Obama nominee, then in my mind, they haven't expressly violated the Constitution, but they have subverted it. 

[ColoradoTree]

That's my point.  Strict constructionism does not require the Senate to approve a nominee.  I've heard a number of leftists argue that the Constitution mandates approval of Obama's nominee.  So they want to use an inaccurate strict interpretation of the Constitution to argue that the Senate is obligated to confirm any Obama nominee, despite the fact that the nominee will most assuredly be a judicial activist.

A few (OK, several) points:

1. You use terms like "leftist" and "judicial activist."  Those are loaded terms with many meanings, and they suggest to me that you're not really interested in having a debate about ideas.  As far as I'm aware, this is not a right-wing message board; it is a Stanford message board where bright, well-meaning people of all political stripes are welcome. 

2.  What do you mean by judicial activist?  Do you agree with the definition that Chief Justice Roberts offered in his confirmation hearings, which is a judge inclined to give excessive scrutiny to and ultimately overturn laws passed by Congress and signed by the President?  If so, then so-called "strict constructionists" have a pretty strong activist streak of their own, as the Voting Rights Act, Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, the Violence Against Women Act, and the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 would attest.  If you instead mean any judge who recognizes Substantive Due Process, a right to privacy (which underpins our right to medical privacy and the right of women to have abortions), or a belief that the Constitution is a living document and its interpretation can and should change depending on the time in which it is interpreted, then yes, any Democratic nominee (and most past Republican nominees) would be judicial activists by that definition. 

3.  Of course the Senate isn't obliged to confirm any nominee the President offers.  And as someone who I'm sure fits your definition of a "leftist"--I assume all Democrats fit the bill?--I can say that I haven't heard any other Democrat say that the Senate is required to confirm the first nominee.  What I think is true is that the Senate should feel bound by 200+ years of precedent to at least consider the nominee, hold hearings, and give the nominee a vote.  And yes, eventually confirm some nominee. 

4. In addition, senior Senators on Judiciary should take the "advice" part of "advice and consent" seriously and, as Orrin Hatch and others have done in the past, suggest nominees that, while being closer to the President's philosophy than the Senate's, would be less objectionable than others. 

5. My problem here is that in the past, Presidents have been able to submit nominees that ultimately get through the Senate.  Bork's rejection (again, after hearings and a vote) followed by Kennedy's unanimous approval is an example of the process working, where the Senate exercises its prerogative not to confirm a particular nominee in order to help ensure that a more moderate nominee is proposed.  If the President nominated an outspoken liberal here and the Senate rejected him/her but later confirmed a more moderate nominee, I wouldn't complain, as that's what should probably happen with divided government. 

6.  If the Senate refuses to approve any nominee, then wouldn't you agree the system is breaking down and not functioning as the Founders intended?  Refusal to confirm a nominee may not violate any express language in the Constitution, but neither does it make such a move consistent with the Constitutional order.  If the Senate follows through with its threat to not consider any Obama nominee, then in my mind, they haven't expressly violated the Constitution, but they have subverted it.