For Republicans the concept of elections always matters.   It was always understood that the only consideration for the confirmation of a judge from the lower circuits up to the nation's highest court would be their professional qualifications.  Clinton received Republican votes for confirmation of both Breyer and Ginsburg.   President Obama's first nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, was confirmed last year, 2009, by a 68 - 31 vote which included nine Republicans.  

Republicans Supporting Sotomayor (9 of 40)

• Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.)
• Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.)
• Sen. Christopher Bond (Mo.)
• Sen. Susan Collins (Maine)
• Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine)
• Sen. Richard Lugar (Ind.)
• Sen. Mel Martinez (Fla.)
• Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.)
• Sen. George Voinovich (Ohio)

It is likely that many if not most of these Republicans did not support Sotomayor's ideology and still don't.  Witness her recent opinion on McDonald v Chicago when Sotomayor's decision contradicted her sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.   However because it was believed that elections matter it was also believed that a Democrat President is thus entitled to his/her own nominations.  Sadly Senate Republicans were always playing by different rules. 

Beginning in 1987 Judge Robert Bork was pilloried by Senators Kennedy and Biden who possessed less than honorable reputations themselves.   It made one wonder about the oddity that it was they who were sitting in judgment of Judge Bork and not the opposite.   Judge Bork was not confirmed.  Subsequent to this hearing 'Bork' became a verb and through one confirmation hearing after another Republicans sat like ladies and gentlemen limiting their questions and their judgment to only the qualifications of the candidate.  Questions were designed to avoid matters that were or might come before the court and instead targeted toward the likely activism of a nominee, the likelihood that the candidate might bring an ideology to the bench that would override an honest interpretation of the law.   When Republican nominees were brought forward Democrats treated them in the same contemptuous manner as they did Judge Bork.   The Democrat Senators attempted to "Bork" anyone who might read and interpret the Constitution in its beautiful simplicity rather than look for hidden meanings that might protect Roe v Wade should that ruling ever come before the court again.   In contrast when Democrat nominees came before the Senate they were introduced by these same Senators as "unassailable" as to their qualifications.   The rudeness directed by Senators toward some nominees and the contrary treatment to their own nominees made it evident that the Senate was not discharging its duties regarding Advice and Consent.  They were engaged in political gamesmanship.  Democrats were in the words of Clarence Thomas, conducting high tech lynchings for Republican nominees.

All Americans should be appalled by such hypocrisy.  Has there ever been a time in American history when the Senate completely stopped being identified as an independent body and instead accepted their identity as demonstrated by a primary allegiance to a political party and the cause of progressivism?     

When candidates are asked to provide testimony it is to allow Senators an opportunity to understand how they think and what their opinions are about broad matters of philosophy.   Miss Kagan is speaking in cliches and instead of answering questions about concepts like unalienable rights and natural law she avoids those questions by providing her assurances that her opinion doesn't matter regarding issues of politics because her politics will not play a factor in her decisions.   This would be comical if not so serious.   What is political about a question that quotes our Declaration of Independence?  If she has an opinion about inalienable rights that is contrary to our Declaration then we cannot believe her statement that she will not be moved by her ideology on the bench.   Further, if her opinion does not matter now, why should it be allowed to matter later if she is confirmed to the court?

Judge Bork made the mistake of answering the questions in detail anticipating that he would be treated fairly and professionally by men like Biden and Kennedy.    Since that time confirmation hearings have become increasingly worse.   Since 1987 candidates have been coached to avoid answering questions that might detract from their candidacy but direct questions about opinions on subjects that might come before the court certainly differ from broad questions of philosophy and these question must be answered.   Roberts, Alito, and Sotomayor did not avoid all questions.  They answered those questions that would not prejudice their own ability to effectively sit on the bench.  Not Miss Kagan.   This woman won't even answer the broadest questions of philosophy, the very thing that this Senate needs to know in order to vote to confirm.

I do not favor filibuster on presidential appointments.   Reference Platform Item 17: Senate / House Rules, http://theteapartyplatform.com/2010/02/28/platform-item-17--senate--house-rules.aspx.  However, it is also clear that both sides of the Senate must play by the same rules.   Democrats filibustered presidential appointments during the Bush Administration.  A Constitutional showdown was imminent and in my opinion, necessary.   Sadly, a Gang of 14 was created to avoid that showdown.  They provided a compromise that would avoid the threat of a filibuster except under what they regarded as 'extraordinary circumstances'.   Senator McCain, you are up for reelection in Arizona this year.  Would you care to tell us whether a nominee who has violated her trust to her university and abused her power to further her political ideology, a woman who now refuses to provide genuine answers that might identify her general philosophy, would you care to tell us whether we can trust such a person or whether we might now have an extraordinary circumstance?  Republicans must react strongly and delay if not completely block this vote.   To mimic Ted Kennedy, "We don't want a person like Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court."