Confirm John Roberts
While various liberal activist groups are already hot and bothered, and some Democratic senators sound like they're lying in wait, I can't see any reason not to confirm John Roberts quickly.
Let's consider what we know about Roberts.
1) He's qualified. It'd be nice if he were more of a legal thinker, but on the other hand, he's had enormous experience in the law, he's obviously very smart, and he seems to have lived an ethical life. Three out of four ain't bad.
2) He's conservative. So what? He's well within the mainstream of political and legal thinking. The president certainly has a right to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court, as long as they're not nut-jobs. Anyway, as we all know, once appointed, judges can surprise you.
3) By attacking Roberts, Democrats and liberals would only damage their own credibility; they'd look as if they were fighting only because they've geared up for a fight. Let Roberts pass. Remember that some day there will again be a Democratic president, who will want his qualified nominees to SCOTUS to receive respectful treatment from the opposition party.
There are plenty of battles to fight; Democrats don't need to fight this one. They'll only wind up looking hysterical and out-of-the-mainstream.
4) Anyway, I suspect that it's the next nomination liberals will have to worry about—the imminent replacement for Rehnquist. If Dems huff-and-puff on this one, they'll lack credibility when the president really does nominate a dangerous ideologue and they huff-and-puff all over again.
5) And here's a final piece of unasked-for advice. The president has tried to frame the debate by appropriating the term "civility." Democrats should retake the word and change the subject by asking the question: "Is it civil for the president's closest aide to engage in a smear campaign against a patriotic CIA agent?" Don't talk about John Roberts. Talk about Karl Rove.
