I have a process observation and a substantive observation.
Process: it appears that Obama is trying to work with the Senate leadership and the Judiciary Committee leadership, according to news article that have come out of late.
I contrast this with W's buffoon announcement that he would nominate Harriett Meyers, a Texas crony of his. Even the GOP Senators pushed back on that one, and rightly so.
Give Obama credit for using a more deliberative process for nominating someone to this great deliberative body, the US Supreme Court.
Substantive observation: when is it qualifications and when is it legal opinions? Nominating judges at all levels is part of the political process, make no mistake about that.
When someone is viewed as qualified for such a nomination, should a Senator vote up or down based on prior opinions a nominee has had?
What about those who have been nominated for a position on a court who has a track record outside the Court, such as academia or political elective office?
I view the current US Senate, especially on the GOP side, as looking to play "Gotcha" on nominees for the Supreme Court and for other judicial levels.
We need good, no--excellent--people on all the benches. I cannot tell right now if the Senate is able to do that.