Opening shots

The NYTimes follows the tone set by Schumer last night, "He's highly qualified, but . . . " The left are trying to figure out how to exact a pledge not to overturn Roe v. Wade without saying so explicitly. They need to find a way to attack him without seeming to be unamerican. So far, they're managing to look like hypocrites and demagogues. Pat Leahy piously uttered, "To fulfill our constitutional duties, we need to consider this nomination as thoroughly and carefully as the American people deserve. No one is entitled to a free pass to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Someone confirmed today can be expected to serve on the court until the year 2030 or later." Nobody is saying Roberts should get a free pass, but wouldn't it be more collegial to give him the same respect and treatment as were given to Justices Ginsburg and Breyer? This man's academic record and his performance as a public servant and as a litigator are so widely acknowledged as to be practically common knowledge in Washington. Bush is the President, after all, and entitled to nominate justices. The Senate's role is to examine his qualifications and the quality of his thinking and personality, and if they find no great flaws, to confirm him. If the "world's greatest deliberative body" can't keep itself from circuses like the Bork and Thomas confirmation fights, perhaps it should be replaced.

Of course, the loudest Democrats won't reciprocate the respectful and polite treatment the Republicans gave Ginsburg and Breyer, but they've got quite a row to hoe. Roberts is so nice, so good at legal reasoning and communication, someone said this will be like trying to get a mob together to lynch Jimmy Stewart. But they'll try to winkle something out of him or people who know him that will shock the conscience of the nation. Expect a hue and cry over the french fry case. Larry Tribe has already raised that bloody flag, and it has demagogic appeal, which is about the only thing the Democrats have to oppose him with.

Anyway, the nomination of John Roberts to SCOTUS is brilliant from just about every angle: qualifications, politics, and PR. From what I'm reading and hearing about Roberts, I'd say he is the most important things I want a justice to be, humble and trustworthy. I won't agree with every decision he makes or position he takes, but I will trust him to know what he's doing and to follow sound legal and constitutional principles and justice. Another thing that impresses me that he seems to possess the kind of likeability and manners that can forge consensus by persuasion, principle and impeccable logic.

It sounds like Roberts is acceptable to the Gang of Fourteen which should assure a confirmation. Any Republican who would support a filibuster of this nominee ought to drummed out of the party, and have to run as an independent. What's a party for if not to organize votes to accomplish common goals? If people like McCain, Graham, Warner, Snowe, Collins, DeWine, Chafee won't support their party at a time like this, the party is better off without them.