In this poorly written editorial in the LA Times (try to make sense of it if you must) their editorial board makes one good point about confirming a Supreme Court nominee:
Fourth, senators are entitled to take their time on what may be the most important votes they will cast, but the president is ultimately entitled to a yes or no on his nominee. In other words, no filibusters. They are an insult to democracy and will come back to haunt the party that misuses parliamentary process in this way.Wow, that's powerful stuff, especially from a paper like the LA Times. Filibusters are an "insult to democracy". Why didn't they publish a statement like that a month ago?
The first three points of this editorial concern themselves with the right of senators to make full assessments of nominees, to analyze judicial philosophy and, thirdly, the right of senators to inquire about specific cases, real or theoretical.
Whomever Bush nominates to fill the existing vacancy and the one to come, the senate should be thoughtful and analytical, examine judicial philosophy but not political ideology, and vote. Period. I'm not holding my breath. This could get ugly.