It’s nice to read an op-ed by a liberal law professor about the coming Supreme Court confirmation debate that is neither sinister nor daft. He closes with a bit of punditry: If Bush puts up “someone whom even moderate Democrats could cheerfully support, the president could redeem his claim to be a uniter rather than a divider–a claim that might enable Republicans to hold their ground or even pick up seats in the Senate elections of 2006,” and thus make it possible for Bush to prevail in future confirmation votes. I think it extremely unlikely that swing voters in November 2006 would reward Bush for a Supreme Court appointment made this year. It is at least as possible that Bush would be better off politically with a pick that excites his base for the midterms. A reader emailed a link to the article with the comment that Amar should stick to the law and leave politics to the Karl Roves of the world. I wouldn’t go that far, but it does seem like Amar wasted space he could have used to tell us something about which he is distinctively authoritative.