Perhaps we should have. But it would have been an incredibly ugly process. It would have been a degrading process, too, for the person who was nominated. And (I might add) for the country.
Correct. But when, in recent times, have Democrats shown a scintilla of decency about what's good for the country? For them, it's all about power. So - call their bluff, let them reject a supremely qualified woman or minority, and, if they succeed - go to the mattresses in the '06 elections, win more seats and renominate the same person. If you want to win anything in life, you do need to take risks. I understand the reluctance - but at some point we're going to have to try, in spite of the broad preference for comfy (don't-call-it) Socialism.
Politics is a nasty, amoral business. The Founders knew that people would always tend to vote themselves ever-larger shares of other people's wealth, given the chance. That's why the Constitution contains such specific checks and balances - now diluted and distended by the Congress and the Court. I had a similar conversation with Pukin' Dog this morning, and the more I've thought about it, the more I think he was right: when it comes to what you believe, never surrender.