For Republicans the concept of elections always mattered.   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.   Most Republicans did not support their ideology and we still don't.  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 Biden and Kennedy whose less than honorable histories exposed an irony as to why it was they who were sitting in judgment of Mr. Bork when it should have been the other way around.   As a result of these hearings 'Bork' became a verb and through one confirmation hearing after another Republicans sat like ladies and gentlemen treating nominees like ladies and gentlemen despite the fact that when Republican nominees were brought forward they were pilloried in the same contemptuous manner as Judge Bork had been.   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 again before the court.   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 nominees like Roberts and Alito and the contrary treatment to their own nominees like Sotomayor and Kagan provide proof that the Senate is not discharging its duties regarding advice and consent.  They are in the words of Clarence Thomas, conducting high tech lynchings for Republican nominees and rolling out the red carpet for the Democrat nominees. 

If there is one thing the public has a right to demand of its elected representatives it is to discharge their constitutional duties professionally as representatives of their districts/states.    Instead they demonstrate a loyalty to an ideology more so than any sense of obligation toward their fiduciary duties as the people's representatives.    I encourage any and all to take a close look at their incumbent representatives during this election campaign.   Are they voting as you prefer or are they marching to the drum of Pelosi and Reid?   How did they vote on Healthcare?   Many held Town Hall Meetings in August 2009 and heard from their constituents in huge numbers that they wanted this bill killed.   Instead, all democrats marched in order to the wishes of Pelosi and Reid and ignored their constituents.   If this is true of your incumbent representative, I urge you to ignore the checkbox next to their name on the ballot and pay close attention to their opponent.  It is his/her box that should instead be checked to demonstrate to these Congressmen and Senators who works for who.