The NYT editorial page has written that Alito should not be confirmed. Given that his confirmation is all but assured by every other news outlet, they ask the relevent question. Why? Alito's confirmation was a joke, and a demonstration the process is defective. It's no longer about answering questions but erecting an impenetrable wall of noncommital to any ideology or opinion.

Then there is the Give Up aspect of the editorial which I agree with.

The real risk for senators lies not in opposing Judge Alito, but in voting for him. If the far right takes over the Supreme Court, American law and life could change dramatically. If that happens, many senators who voted for Judge Alito will no doubt come to regret that they did not insist that Justice O'Connor's seat be filled with someone who shared her cautious, centrist approach to the law.

Given that pro-life states are already gearing up for a Roe challenge this is not just alarmism. It is quite likely we will see a reversal in the next few years, especially if one of our aging liberals on the court decides to kick the bucket. If the loss of this battle is inevitable, we must begin planning for the resulting fight. The way I see it, we're witnesses to a slow-moving train collision. We can't stop it, but we need to make a point of remembering who was driving the train, and fully documenting the wreck. In a way, the NYT is trying to do the Republicans a favor. If they succeed they will only manage to destroy their party. The shitstorm they've blundered into with this course of action will be their undoing.

On the other side of the debate, William Saletan had an interesting Op-Ed on how the Democrats should steal the abortion issue from the Republicans, by declaring war on it. An interesting idea.