Informed Speculation

…says the loathsome Armando of Daily Kos fame about the Washington Post’s reasonable stance on judicial nominees, adopting an attitude some of my conservative brethren would do well to avoid. What’s got Armando in such a tizzy (well, in even more of a tizzy than his endless supply of outrage normally has him in)? Let’s take a look at the offending passage:

…[I]t is no more legitimate for conservatives than for liberals to demand satisfaction on the “key issues of the day,” as Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) put it. Mr. Bush is not obligated to nominate a jurist with a stated philosophy that can be relied on to produce predictable votes on contested questions. The president promised during his campaigns to nominate justices who would interpret the law strictly and not legislate from the bench. He believes Ms. Miers would be such a justice and is willing to put his prestige behind the proposition, and that fact entitles the nominee to reasonable consideration.

Oh, well, that is most objectionable. One can easily see why it would infuriate someone that a leading newspaper comes out in favor of careful consideration of nominees who will judge each case on its merits.

More laughable than the thought of getting all bent out of shape over such an innocuous passage is the sizzling commentary Armando brings to the table:

“What in the hell is WaPo talking about?”

“Who in the hell are you to tell [the Senate] what information they should not seek?”

“WaPo’s formulation that it is “[il]legitimate” for the Senate to ask about the “key issues of the day” is nonsensical.” (Naturally, that’s not even what the Post said – they said it is not legitimate for either side to demand satisfaction on the issues of the day – i.e., to prejudge cases.)

“What sheer nonsense. What Wapo means is it is not fair to ask about Roe.” (It’s always abortion with these guys, isn’t it? How tiresome.)

“What a crock. WaPo endorses stonewalling and stealth nominees, with a rubber stamping Senate thrown in for good measure.

Simply ridiculous.”

Well, that’s some heavy-duty analysis, with a good deal of intellectual heft, but Armando, how do you REALLY feel?