Now that's a good column. It's way better than Krauthammer's column.
I liked Krauthammer's column better, because it didn't include more of the stupid personal attacks and name-calling that we all expect from the left ("brown-noser"?)
Stop talking about the horrible process, the "looks bad", the "what was he thinking" crap.
Oppose the nominee because the nominee has no judicial record, and doesn't seem capable of speaking to one coherently. Or because the nominee doesn't seem able to handle the rigors of the process, or doesn't seem to take the process seriously, or just has too little knowledge of constitutional issues.
Or better still, join the "we need enough information to understand this nominee, and that includes all the advice she gave to the president -- because her work was about judicial nominees, and her reports will show how she evaluated judicial nominees, which will reveal what she thought about their positions."
That is a rational request, and could be essential to prove that this nominee has the correct judicial philosophy and understands what it means.
Sure, the President probably can't give us that information. But let me take this a step further:
In the past Bush argued that when he didn't turn stuff over, that it wasn't stuff HE had looked at either, and therefore it had nothing to do with his choice.
In THIS case, his choice, the reason he thinks she is OK, is precisely due to the information she has given him these past 10 years. The President can't expect us to SIMPLY trust him, we need to verify that what he sees is what we would see. And to do that, we need to see all the stuff HE has seen.
I'm not saying I LIKE the argument, or that it is entirely fair, but it is a rational argument that has merit.
And it could lead to the rejection of a nominee without ANY capitulation to the fringe wing of a party throwing a hissy fit (I am not endorsing that view, just that is what will be said if we "throw her out" the WRONG way).