I'll address the arguments against holding confirmation hearings:
1. "We should let the American people decide"
They did in 2012.
2. [Something about nominees during election years]
There are "no instances in which a president faced with a Supreme Court vacancy during a presidential election year did not make a nomination. It occurred five times between 1912 and 1940, and each time the nominee was confirmed."
3. "The Senate has every right not to confirm a nominee."
They do have this right. They do not have the right to refuse to hold hearings, fail to pass a budget or otherwise induce government hostage crises, or invite the head of a client state into the seat of our government to rail against our elected President's policy. Because an oath was taken to uphold the Constitution, which means executing its duly prescribed processes so that the state may function. Instead, today's GOP has shown an unwavering dedication to spiting and disrespecting the President, and the Office of the Presidency, no matter the cost to the nation.
As someone whose self-identification as a fiscally moderate, socially liberal Republican in the mold of John Chafee is not yet extinct, I cannot refer to today's Republicans as anything other than the Grotesque Obstructive Party. Which is really too cute a term for this disgraceful, and certainly unconservative, faction.
