In picking such a vulnerable nominee, Bush single-handedly undercut the conservatives' long-standing claim that the Senate and the rest of us owed great deference to a president's choice for the court.
It may be that the process is improved over "back to normal." The GOP has been derelict in not opposing activist nominees. The process has been sidetracked to issues advocacy, instead of to the core question of whether or not the nominee sees the court as a sort of super-legislature.
Isn't it true that conservatives in fact DO want to "go backwards," to return to the traditional role of the court in our Republic? It is change that we seek, from the popular modern and liberal view that the Constitution is a living, breathing set of guidelines; to the strict constructionsit, traditional conservative view that teh COnstitution sets out limits on the Federal government's power, and leaves social issues in the hands of the people and the states to the greatest practical extent.
Now, if the GOP would stop permitting the DEMs and liberals to set the terms of debate, we'll really be getting somewhere. SCOTUS picks are NOT about conservative/liberal issues advocacy. They are about returning control of the issues debate to the people, without setting out a resolution to those debates one way or the other.
I agree.