@INVAR
One thing you can certainly find here is an argument. I used 'appoint' because the other poster used appoint.
Regardless, it is uncommon for people the President nominates to not be confirmed by the Senate. But hey rather then discussing the point of the response you can go off on a tangent.
It keeps things so much more exciting and enjoyable.
Words mean things, and when I see the word 'appoint' when used to sell Trump, I'm alarmed.
I am unclear as to whether or not advise and consent is optional in this post-Constitutional whatever-it-is, simply to give the Executive whatever he wants so as to be seen as 'bi-partisan'.
The Democrats have vowed not to permit the confirmation of anyone in the mold of Scalia or any Conservative, and they don't bend much.
Given history - it will be the GOP who bends to the will of the Democrats and cave rather than getting the Democrats to confirm a Conservative to the courts.
IOWs, the selling point for Trump that he will "APPOINT" Conservatives to the court is moot - because it does not work that way by any stretch of reason and reality.
Unless of course everyone is comfortable with the defacto dictatorship already set-up to be exploited.