He comments on the fact that Democratic investigations in the House and Senate have had the side effect of slowing the approvals of Bush Judicial Nominees.

However, an article on the front page of Wednesday’s Washington Post penned by Jerry Markon perhaps adds to the case that the investigations into Gonzales and the administration, more broadly, are bringing benefits — tangentially related, but related nonetheless — both to the Democratic Party and to the progressive movement. Specifically, as the Senate Judiciary Committee works on these and other investigations, it is not taking up potential judicial nominees sent to Capitol Hill by President Bush.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, long considered one of the nation’s most conservative appellate courts, is shifting to a moderate direction with the balance up for grabs. A growing list of vacancies — now five — has left the court evenly divided between Republican and Democratic appointees.

With an election year approaching, experts predict the court will tilt decisively to the left if Democrats keep control of Congress and reclaim the White House.

“There is a very good chance that this court will be solidly Democratic for many, many years,” said Arthur D. Hellman, a University of Pittsburgh law professor. He said the current 5-5 split — which began July 17 when Judge H. Emory Widener Jr., a Republican appointee, took semi-retirement — is “tremendously significant.”

To clarify, I’m not arguing that the Democrats pursue investigations of spurrious charges in order to slow the confirmation of ultra-conservative jurists. Far from it. But at the same time, the positive consequences that have come out of the fact that the Congress has been holding the Bush administration’s feet to the fire are not limited to a few subpoenas here and there, a few resignations here and there, and the truth beginning to come out. And if, as a result of these investigations appellate courts around the country do not shift to the right — or even shift to the left, as this article seems to indicate is the case with the fourth circuit — that’s not necessarily a bad thin.

Well said.