Originally posted by: sapiens74
What actually bothered me was the Dems conceded to confirm her before the hearings. So much for the job interview....
Non-issue. The dems' responsibility is to evaluate her and to confirm or deny her. If they can get the info needed to form that conclusion before the hearings, they've met their duty.
That doesn't mean the hearings shouldn't be held, even for them. They should. And more relevantly, it doesn't mean they aren't free to change their position based on the hearings.
If she said anything in the hearings that changed her qualifications to serve, every Democrat who expressed approval previous could, should and IMO would change their vote to no.
So, IMO you are trying to make an issue that isn't there, as if they were not basing their position on the right sort of information.