"Regretfully, if we are not consulted on, and approve of, a nominee from our states, the Republican Conference will be unable to support moving forward on that nominee".

a bunch of lying hypocrites,

is a tad harsh. it does state a requirement for

extraordinary circumstances

after all. the question then becomes: define extraordinary circumstances?

in this instance, i believe we have our answer: extraordinary circumstances occur when a democrat is elected president.

I have no problem with Senators from the states being consulted about judicial nominations, but I do not believe that approval is or should be a deal-breaker.

We have a history in the Fourth Circuit, of which my state, MD, is a part, of contentious wrangling over judicial nominations.

Here's an article from 2006 that, after you read it, will have you wondering whether there is a giant sandbox in Richmond, in which all the players squabble and throw sand at each other.

An excerpt:

The politics of judge-picking have been a particularly virulent pox on the Senate over the past few years; lately, it's the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals where the battle lines are most closely drawn.

Of the three or four highly contentious circuit court nominees awaiting Senate confirmation, two are set to fill slots on the Richmond, Va.-based court: U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle and Department of Defense general counsel William Haynes II, whose tenure at DOD includes controversial policies on detainees and torture.

A third slot on the court has been vacant since Baltimore attorney Francis Murnaghan Jr. died almost six years ago. Maryland's two Democratic senators, Paul Sarbanes and Barbara Mikulski, have long insisted that the Bush administration choose a lawyer with deep Maryland roots. The White House acceded in 2004 by nominating its chief domestic policy adviser, Claude Allen, the former secretary of health and human resources for the commonwealth of Virginia. Allen, who had never practiced in Maryland and whose 4th Circuit nomination lapsed in December 2005, resigned from the White House in February, shortly before he was charged with a felony theft scheme for allegedly defrauding department stores by returning items he had not purchased and claiming a refund.

[snip]

Democratic senators who serve during a Republican administration, as is the case with Maryland's two senators, find their influence severely diminished -- at least with this White House. Before Allen's 2004 nomination to the 4th Circuit, the name of D.C. lawyer Peter Keisler had been seriously floated, but he took himself out of the running after Sarbanes and Mikulski opposed him. Keisler, now the assistant attorney general for the Civil Division, was not a member of the Maryland Bar.

The latest potential nominee, reported in April by The Baltimore Sun, is U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, a Pennsylvanian who also lacks deep Maryland roots and is opposed by Sarbanes and Mikulski. Sarbanes, who is retiring, has a particular fondness for the circuit; in 1960 and 1961 he clerked for Morris Soper, a 4th Circuit judge appointed by President Herbert Hoover.

This shows how weak they are at this point.  They are grasping at straws.

No, calling them the "Democrat" senators, now.

And, in case you need a reminder just why the Rethugs are so anxious to get Keisler confirmed (when Specter went to the WH for the Super Bowl party, pushing Kieisler's nomination along with Diamond, a former staffer of his, was Specter's big ask), go back and read my diary (from 2006) telling you why he should be blocked.

BTD - you, on the other hand, have either made a mistake (charitable interpretation) or lied (uncharitable interpretation) in your post.

I can tell from reading your posts that you're a fair-minded person, so I assume you'll want to correct your error.