Not only did the Democrat Senators fail to hurt Roberts, . . .

Robert Novak details how they hurt their own credibility, and and handed Chuck Schumer "a crushing defeat in his campaign to establish a new standard for confirmation of Supreme Court nominees. Ever since George W. Bush's election, Schumer has been planning how to force nominees to take broad policy positions." Schumer had boldly claimed that Senators should ask pointed litmus-test questions and insist that nominees give them answers to them. He seemed to get away with it for a while, when Democrats in the Senate were willing to sustain a filibuster against nominees for lesser judgeships, but when it came to the Supreme Court, and he had to make a case for filibustering him as an extremist. Instead, he made his own party look like the extremists--trying to dictate legal decisions to the Supreme Court.

In response, the Democrats have so hardened their posture that a unanimous Judiciary Committee vote by them against Roberts is probable. In the full Senate, the most that Roberts can hope for is probably eight Democrats, or 63 total votes.

Schumer said at the beginning of the hearing he would accept Roberts as a "mainstream conservative" but not an "ideologue." Is Roberts more of an ideologue than Justice Antonin Scalia, who was confirmed with 98 votes? Is Roberts more of an ideologue than former American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) general counsel Ginsburg, who got 96 votes?

As unserious as Schumer is, the The New York Times is worse. Ignoring the obvious, it is still opposing Roberts's confirmation. Why bother with hearings if you're not going to consider what they demonstrate? More support for Noemie Emery's conviction that the Democrats have no future.