The Herald On Replacing Justice Stevens (Yawn)

Happy wet Monday, kids.

Did you see this controversial, bold, assertive Herald editorial on replacing Justice Stevens?

Neither did I.

Instead we got the usual opinion-free, can't we all get along, both-sides-are-to-blame, warmed-over Broderisms that reflect an alternate reality far apart from the one the rest of us inhabit.

Consider this hard-hitting statement:

Republicans, for their part, have an obligation to hold their fire unless there are well-founded reasons to object. If Mr. Obama makes a centrist choice, the nominee deserves to be treated as such.

Whoa!

Calm down there, buddy.

Any idea how to make this pipe dream a reality?

Mr. Obama no doubt believes that a president's prerogatives should be respected, barring a truly awful choice. He can help his own case -- as he did with Judge Sotomayor -- by avoiding the selection of an ideological firebrand.

But that contradicts the entire first section of the editorial, which is about how the right went after Sotomayor, "put [her] through the proverbial wringer for the sake of politics" and "found spurious reasons to vilify her character and disparage her judicial record" even though she was a well-respected jurist comfortably within the mainstream of American jurisprudence.

Is there anything at all in the air to suggest something different this time around?

Granted, the Herald's editorials have always been for the most part inoffensive, milque-toast expressions of conventional wisdom, tentatively expressed.

But this one literally adds zero to an important issue that requires an accurate -- as opposed to idealized -- understanding of today's political landscape.

If wishes were ponies.....