Stones Cry Out

My view of the constitution says that I don't have to provide evidence regarding your arguments. You need to provide evidence that the presidents nominee is not qualified. You haven't done that. Saying she is a B+ and you wanted an A is not enough. The Commander-in-chief picks the nominee, not the Demander(s)-in-chief. Yet some are willing to divide the party on this. Think about it. What 'principle' are you standing on that is worth dividing the party? There are a lot of Bible verses on divisivness in the church - if this were church, we'd have to throw you out. It's clear that non-religious conservatives do not bring Biblical values to politics. They seem to be proud of this rebellion. Ask yourself, what is the origin of this spirit of this attack? Is it being done out of love?

What part of advise and consent do you not understand? If the President does not pick a qualified nominee, the Senate has a duty to reject it.

As for non-religious conservatives not bringing Biblical values...um, duh.

Look, would you accept an unqualified man as pastor?

Divide the party! Divide the party!

I'll join the Greens if you'll join the Libertarians...

Bruce, no one's saying that the President shouldn't be allowed to pick who he wants for SCOTUS. Nobody's saying that the conservative base should be the ones to pick it. That's a straw argument on your part.

What is being said is that given what the President promised during the campaign (i.e. a Scalia/Thomas-type justice), he appears to many to have broken his promise and he's being called on it. Are we to remain mute when the President breaks a promise? Is silence the "loving" thing to do?

OK - answers to your questions:
"What part of advise and consent do you not understand?" I think I understand it pretty well. Before the nomination, Bush met with many to seek advice. My understanding was that this candidate was on the list of both sides of the isle as someone they felt they could support. Now you and the guys at the Corner are advocating a rejection of the 'pre-advised' candidate. I agree that it is a possibility that a candidate can fail in the 'consent' phase - that's why we have the hearing process. You are advocating rejection BEFORE any hearings or consent phase. That's interferring with the process - and that's why my argument is NOT a straw-man.

"Would you accept an unqualified man as pastor?" My church nominates pastors and lets all express concerns. If I had a concern, I would participate in the process, and yes, you guess it, I have participated in that process. I did it in love. There was some clear information that the person did not meet a hard qualification. I presented the information to the appropriate people, the candidate was presented with the information, and withdrew themselves. Sometimes there are guys that back-bite, etc., sharing info outside the process. That's what I equate to this activity of demanding withdrawal before the hearing.
"Are we to remain mute when the President breaks a promise? Is silence the "loving" thing to do?"

No, we don't need to remain silent. I'm not sure I agree this is a broken promise (that's a matter of opinion in this case), but I agree that if you fell that way, you should speak. Speak the truth in love, brother. I see a lot of recommended links on this web site to postings that are FAR from the spirit of sharing their dissenting opinion in love. The 'spirit' of some of the linked postings is much more like back-biting. And the quantity of those type of links is becoming concerning.