Was Hatch an insufferable obstructionist, or was he the cooperator who recommended Ginsburg and Breyer to Clinton and then helped shepherd them through the Senate?

He was both. Obstructionist particularly on lower-court nominations and elevations, but more cooperative when SCOTUS nominations were on the table, because the public pays attention to them.

He could easily have called for a filibuster of Bader-Ginsburg; Clinton knew he needed to court Hatch, so he consulted with him. And Hatch, once courted, acted in good faith on Bader-Ginsburg, who in turn was quite forthcoming in her confirmation hearings.

IOW, Clinton had to deal with a hostile and obstructionist Judiciary Committee chairman from the other party who was not about to grant him any deference as a matter of courtesy.

Well, now wait a minute. You’re tripping over Scott M’s argument, here. Was Hatch an insufferable obstructionist, or was he the cooperator who recommended Ginsburg and Breyer to Clinton and then helped shepherd them through the Senate?

By contrast, Bush’s party controls both houses of Congress and the only way for the Dems to stop a nominee is to filibuster.

Ginsburg was nominated when Dems controlled the House and the Senate, and when Republicans had the same options open to them that Democrats have today. She was confirmed 41 days after her nomination, by a vote of 96-3 (her vote out of committee was unanimous). Alito’s nomination has already been pending 85 days. He was voted out of committee on a straight party-line vote, and looks to receive no more than a handful of Democratic votes.

Even when Republicans did control the Judiciary Committee, when Breyer was nominated, he was confirmed in 72 days by a vote of 87-9.

IOW, Clinton had to deal with a hostile and obstructionist Judiciary Committee chairman from the other party who was not about to grant him any deference as a matter of courtesy. By contrast, Bush’s party controls both houses of Congress and the only way for the Dems to stop a nominee is to filibuster.

Bush blew it with Miers, and corrected his mistake.

He blew it not because she was conservative, but because she was unqualified. It was wrong of him to focus so much on the former that he ignored (or, heck, encouraged) the latter. It would only have been natural–as it is in this choice, and in his choice of Roberts–to choose someone whose political views are aligned with his own.

Or as President Bush recognized when he nominated Harriet Miers?

Bush blew it with Miers, and corrected his mistake.

And so what if the Republicans do play politics if and when a Democratic nominee comes up?

Well, for one thing, an otherwise qualified Democratic nomination could be voted down. For another thing, it wouldn’t be healthy for an already badly politicized judicial appointment process. The Court as an institution is not going to escape harm if the public starts viewing nominations as a completely partisan affair, a point Jon Kyl made in voting on Alito in committee. It used to be that the party that won the election was entitled to deference in SCOTUS nominees, and qualifications were the overriding factor. Dems keep trying to change that calculus, and I don’t see it leading anywhere good.

Gee, I don’t know, how about basic fairness or merit? How about because we should have our most highly qualified jurists on the Supreme Court, regardless of ideology, as Republicans recognized when they overwhelmingly voted for Ginsburg and Breyer? How about because voting down a nomination based on ideology alone can come back to bite Democrats in the butt the next time they get to pick a Justice?

Or as President Bush recognized when he nominated Harriet Miers? Merit and fairness were not the only considerations in his nomination, and they shouldn’t be the only considerations in his approval. If Bush gets to take Alito’s anti-abortion stance into account, so does the Senate.

And so what if the Republicans do play politics if and when a Democratic nominee comes up? Do we have something in writing that they won’t do that anyway?

A CNN poll finds that 56% of respondents would not support Alito if it became clear during the hearings that he would overturn Roe.

A poll from after the hearings finds that 54% support Alito — but 66% want Roe to stand.

Face it zuzu: you lost this one. Your party had the chance to make its case to the nation that Alito is an extremist, and it failed: a majority of the US and of the Senate supports him. I invited you to rebut me and make your own argument to that effect, and you declined. Now it’s all over but the whining.

The Democrats are setting a terrible precedent for ideological voting on SCOTUS nominees, and unfortunate though it may be, have forfeited the right to cry foul when their future picks receive similar treatment.