@maporsche,
Look, judges can be roughly divided into two camps of judicial philosophy that can, in turn, be described as either "conservative" or "liberal." This is not, at all, the same thing as "Republican" or "Democrat" even though it is the case that Republicans tend to favor conservative judges, while Democrats favor liberal ones. Please don't try and peddle the notion that Democrats don't care about the judicial philosophy of a nominee, they only seek to confirm that he or she is qualified.
Now while the great majority of conservative judges are Republican and the great majority of liberal judges are Democrats, this is not a given. It is conceivable that a judge that views the Constitution through an "originalist" lens might either be a member of the Democrat party or generally vote for Democrats. We know from past experience that judges who could be considered Republican revealed a liberal judicial philosophy once seated on the Court (Justice Souter being the most recent).
If an individual or a group of individuals believes that it is not only right and proper but crucial that cases that come before the Supreme Court are considered from the perspective of conservative judicial philosophy it is entirely reasonable for them to want to see judges who genuinely and consistently adhere to that philosophy nominated for appointments. There is nothing sinister about this unless you hold the twisted notion that conservative judicial philosophy is evil. You may think it is wrongheaded and can lead to decisions with which you vehemently disagree, but to imagine it as a function of some evil creed dedicated to promoting evil in the nation is either stunningly stupid or insane.
On my own, it would be next to impossible for me to do the research (including interviews on a casual or formal basis) required to compile a list of judges whom I believed to be suitable (based on the criteria of qualifications, judicial philosophy, and character) for a nomination. Recruiting a dozen or so friends and associates for the task would not make it any less impossible.
In order to complete the task effectively a person or group must:
1) Have a knowledge that goes beyond familiarity of the individuals who might conceivably be considered for nomination.
1a) Have met or observed each of these individuals in their professional lives and, to a much lesser extent, their personal lives, or have access to candid input from people who have and who are trusted
2) Have the resources to conduct extensive research of public records on the professional and personal lives of each individual
3) Have a high enough level of legal knowledge and expertise to understand and appreciate each individual's body or work which would be expected to include case opinions, scholarly articles, and speech transcriptions
4) Have a sufficiently deep and wide network of experts and professionals to draw upon
5) Have the money and time necessary to complete what is an exhaustive and expensive process. A lot of legwork, well in advance of a particular nomination is required.
I readily admit that I do not have these required elements and neither does the average lawyer. I will take it a step or two further and contend that the majority of American politicians don't have ready access to these elements either, and that they cannot be met by the White House staffs of any president.
So if I were charged with the responsibility of nominating someone to sit on the Supreme Court, I would seek the assistance and advise of others. If my friends and close associates were unable to meet the challenge, and neither was my professional staff, I would welcome the assistance and advice of
external experts. There is nothing particularly admirable about a president who is so bloated by hubris that he or she feels they can arrive at such a momentous decision without the advice and recommendations of others.
In this particular case, President Trump relied on an outside group to provide him with a list of candidates who fit the bill he desired and then after personally interviewing candidates, selected his nominee.
Again, what is wrong with this? And this time try and be specific.
As I noted before quite a few Republican presidents have been snookered by their nominees. If this had happened to Democrat presidents you would be concerned that it might happen again and would encourage a Democrat president to obtain assistance from those who could greatly reduce the chance of it reoccurring...and you would be smart to do so. This is not a case of covering malfeasance with "Democrats have and would do it too!" There's nothing wrong with it.
