It doesn't, but the notion that they will simply refuse to appoint anyone is clearly a problem if you believe in the checks and balances as laid out in the Constitution. As I pointed out to you earlier, there's a difference between saying that a particular candidate is not a good one and saying that you simply don't accept the president's right to fulfill his Constitutional obligations.
Not really. One Democrat said that he felt fooled by Bush's nominations and that they should be especially careful going forward. The party as a whole didn't outright say that they wouldn't even give a hearing to anyone nominated by the president because there was some arbitrary amount of time left in his term.
And anyway, you're not arguing against the idea that that this is improper; you're just inaccurately asserting that others have done the same thing. That's only a legitimate argument if you support what you falsely think that Democrats did.
Of course it should depend on who he nominates. No one is saying that any choice should automatically be accepted. People just believe that the process should be carried out as the Constitution calls for.
