I guess if you think Obama might potentially appoint a nominee who is going to be a strict constructionist you could quibble with saying ahead of time that they'll vote down any Obama nominee. But, realistically, that's not going to happen. Obama is going to nominate people who do not believe in following the original understanding of the Constitution. So if you want they could play the game of saying they'll consider each on a case by case basis but won't accept anybody that's not an original understanding person. But the outcome would be the same.
Aka not accept anyone that doesn't fit your ideology. The constitution should be apolitical, John.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/02/15 ... ntent=link
“At the outset, the Senate should discount the philosophy of the nominee. In our politically centrist society, it is highly unlikely that any Executive would nominate a man of such extreme views of the right of the left as to be disturbing to the Senate. However, a nomination, for example, of a Communist or a member of the American Nazi Parly, would have to be considered an exception to the recommendation that the Senate leave ideological considerations to the discretion of the Executive. Political and philosophical considerations were often a factor in the nineteenth century and arguably in the Parker, Haynsworth and Carswell cases also, but this is not proper and tends to degrade the Court and dilute the constitutionally proper authority of the Executive in this area. The President is presumably elected by the people to carry out a program and altering the ideological directions of the Supreme Court would seem to be a perfectly legitimate part of a Presidential platform. To that end, the Constitution gives to him the power to nominate. As mentioned earlier, if the power to nominate had been given to the Senate, as was considered during the debates at the Constitutional Convention, then it would be proper for the Senate to consider political philosophy. The proper role of the Senate is to advise and consent to the particular nomination, and thus, as the Constitution puts it, “to appoint.” This taken within the context of modern times should mean an examination only into the qualifications of the President’s nominee.”
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That's a great idea and all, but it's hard to take politics out of, well, politics. The Constitution is very clear - the President gets to pick someone to fill a Court vacancy, and the Senate has to say yes before that person is official. So in that context, Obama is perfectly fine nominating anyone and everyone he wants, whenever he wants to, and the Senate is perfectly fine voting (or in some cases not going to a vote) on anyone and everyone they don't want to fill that vacancy. It may not be pretty, but it's entirely Constitutional.
Oh, and that paragraph from addictinginfo seems like it was written before Bork. All the rules changed after Bork - it's practically Biden's legacy to have introduced contentious Senate questioning of prospective jurors.