In an editorial on the Miers nomination, the NY Times has the audacity to argue:
Ms. Miers’s nomination is a sign of just how politicized judicial selection has become. The normal model for a Supreme Court nominee is a judge, usually from a federal appeals court, who has served long enough to develop and demonstrate judicial excellence. But today, anyone who meets that standard runs into a political Catch-22. The far right of the Republican Party will oppose anyone who has shown signs of moderation, and Senate Democrats will try to block anyone who has not. Rather than select a strongly qualified candidate from the legal mainstream, President Bush has taken the easy way out by choosing a less accomplished nominee who will raise fewer political problems.
Yes, the same editorial page that tries to portray any judge who does have clear conservative credentials as an extremist, is now arguing that the process of judicial selection has become too politicized. It is also worth noting that it is precisely the view of the judiciary that the NY Times embraces–i.e. that judges should make laws based on evolving social trends–that causes a potential nominee’s political ideology to become so important.