My most recent Tech Central Station column takes a closer look at the question of questioning Supreme Court nominees:

Sure, Roberts is not quite “mediocre.” It’s hard to call a guy with his resume mediocre. But after a week of every liberal interest group in the country digging around in the judge’s past like a bunch of coked-up ferrets for his positions on various issues, we’ve learned … precisely nothing.

This nominee’s not just stealth. He’s actually invisible.

But while the Roberts nomination may seem like a sly move to a White House that clearly sees itself in a weak position politically, is this the kind of behavior anyone wants to encourage in a president? Is this any kind of process, where a nominee to the Supreme Court having an opinion on anything — like, say, the Constitution — is seen as a potentially devastating liability?

It’s been an interesting debate, and I’ve been encouraged to see some conservatives I trust come out on the side of serious questioning (Ponnuru, Barnett and some other folks at Bench Memos).

Sen. Schumer’s general grandstanding and dumbassitude has made it a harder debate to have within the conservative movement (though I don’t think we’d be having the debate at all if not for his agitation). But it’s starting to proceed.

It probably won’t affect the process for this nomination, which is basically a lock. But it could make people think a bit harder in the future.

Or, Roberts will sail through so easily — precisely because of the “stealth” strategy — that a dangerous precedent will be set for decades to come.

Could go either way, I guess.

Oh well.