I thought of leading with the new story from Life News about Kagan meeting with the AMA when she worked in the Clinton White House to finesse their position on partial-birth abortion too, but why bother? What’s truer to the spirit of these moronic confirmation hearings, debating the propriety of a political officer influencing a medical lobby’s scientific conclusions or debating whether she’s on Team Edward or Team Jacob?

There’s nothing in the Constitution that requires a confirmation hearing for a nominee so I don’t know why we bother anymore. The argument in favor, I guess, is that when someone’s paper trail is as thin as Kagan’s is, it’s that much more important to haul her before Congress to find out what her thinking is. But that’s idiotic. It’s precisely because no one knows what her thinking is that Obama nominated her. Do you really think he would have chanced it if he wasn’t perfectly sure that she’d dodge any “tough” question thrown her way? Her nomination is historic in this sense: So easy has it been for her that future presidents will be sorely tempted to follow The One’s example and pick ciphers of their own. Why risk a contentious hearing by choosing a judge with 20 years’ worth of opinions when you can pick a law professor somewhere who’s written three articles or whatever in 25 years? There’s great risk in that, of course — if you’re not sure where your nominee stands, you’re risking another Souter — but that can be dealt with to some extent in private conversations. So if you’re excited at the thought of more people being named to the Court with zero experience, good news! The future belongs to you. Bring on the “Twilight” questions.

Update: The latest news from the hearing. I guess it was all worth it now.