I suppose this isn't too surprising. What is surprising to me is that it is getting any attention in the mainstream media at all. Why on earth does anyone care what Glenn Beck things of this appointment (or anything else for that matter)? Or even what some conservative Republican Senator thinks, unless there are enough votes to filibuster. Last I recalled, their side lost the election. The primary objections to Koh seem to be (1) some trumped up charge that he wants to impose Sharia law, and (2) his vociferous criticism of the Bush administration's abuses of the rule of law. I won't dignify the first, but as to the second, see above. It's the lawyers (conservative or not, see Jack Goldsmith) who were not critical of the treatment of rule of law under the last administration who have some 'splainin to do, not those who were.UPDATE: Perhaps I wasn't clear. Go ahead and listen to Glenn Beck if you want to. War game the future civil war you think is coming. Take seriously Sen. Inhofe's rantings about snowfall in the spring disproving global warming. I don't care. My point is that Obama won the election, and, as Republicans never tired of pointing out regarding Bush's nominees, Obama is entitled to appoint people who agree with him. Harold Koh is an honorable man, an esteemed scholar, and an eminently qualified lawyer. Until there appears to be a real reason to oppose the nomination (not just that he was critical of the last administration) or enough opposition to actually put the nomination in some sort of danger, Glenn Beck's paranoid delusions about Sharia law or the other latest rumblings from the far-right wing echo chamber are simply not suitable to be featured in the New York Times, etc. It's just not part of the news that's fit to print.UPDATE: From the comments, here's a response to the Koh criticisms, from Jack Balkin (thanks Antonio).