Allow me to use the words of others to express the point I was making ...
Partly because of the Democrats' success in filibustering appellate court nominees, Bush had a shorter list of candidates to examine for the Supreme Court. Highly qualified prospects were unavailable, deemed too inflammatory by Senate leaders or, as in Estrada's case, unwilling to re-enter the fray.And there is the report too, that Harry Reid, before the nomination, had been asked whether or not each candidate on the list would be "too inflammatory." Perhaps indirectly, through the GOP Senate leadership. But the DEMs were consulted in advance, with the purpose of choosing a nominee that would not provoke a filibuster showdown. That was an, if not the sole objective of the discussion between the President and the Senate.
You may nitpick my use of the word "vetted," but I think you know what I meant. And with that, aideu.
Speculation by the Tribune is interesting but it is only that. I put little weight in it. You are free to make it the center piece of your conclusions though.
As I said before Advice and Consent can take many forms and there is certainly nothing wrong with the President talking to the parties' leadership about this issue.
It is highly distorting things to claim that "highly qualified" nominees are ruled out. That is a total falsehood.