To follow up on Adam's post, one potentially important aspect of the Sotomayor confirmation vote is that it's by far the most "no" votes that have been ever been cast in the modern era against a justice who was generally perceived as a relative moderate. (I would see the 17 cast against the Eisenhower appointee Potter Stewart as the new runner-up.) Just as the Roberts and (especially) the Alito nominations -- certifiably conservative picks -- suggested that even an Antonin Scalia or Thurgood Marshall could be confirmed with little Senate opposition, the Sotomayor vote suggests that even a Kennedy or Breyer may not be confirmed by near-acclimation in the future.
To be clear, I do not regard this as a bad thing. (If the Senate simply made it impossible for a president to select anyone that would be a different issue, but it's not going to happen.) Indeed, I would like to think that the end of unanimous or near-unanimous confirmation votes may pave the way for a confirmation discourse suitable for grownups.
Granted, in the specific case of Sotomayor, a lot of the race-bating Adam correctly identifies probably would have occurred no matter what. But the ludicrous attacks on Sotomayor's "qualifications" are also in part a symptom of a larger problem with the process. Opposition to nominees is often couched in spurious arguments about qualifications because it's bizarrely considered inappropriate for senators to consider philosophical or ideological differences, despite the fact that modern presidents certainly consider them. As it becomes acceptable for senators to oppose even nominees who are widely considered to be qualified, perhaps they can be more honest about the reasons for opposition as well.
--Scott Lemieux
