Matthew Yglesias cuts to a core issue in his post today on the Michael McConnell nomination.

A quote:

"The poor babies at the Washington Post are sad, sad, sad that Michael McConnell might not get to be a judge even though he's really smart and went to good schools and has some smart liberal professor friends. Said smart friends are contrasted with dastardly "liberal advocacy groups" with the crazy notion that protecting the rights of women, religious and racial minority groups, consumers, the poor, and the environment is more important than protecting the rights of smart intellectuals to become judges. This is really the worst kind of liberalism and the worst kind of rationale for inaction."

Addition: Via Hamster, we found Jack Newfield's article on the judicial selection process in the Sept. 19 issue of the Nation. It is very long and thorough but we liked the ending so much we are going to reprint it here:

"During America's first century, one of every four Supreme Court nominees was rejected by the Senate. The Founding Fathers gave the Senate the power of advise and consent for judicial nominees for sound reasons involving checks and balances among the branches of government that are elected and appointed.

Applying Herman Melville's "No! in thunder" to the extremist nominees for lifetime appointments is as American as baseball, the blues and the Constitution itself."