Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
I will be looking forward to them.
My question is this: did the Democrats on the committee set things up so that they can effectively stand up to the next nominee, should he or she be someone with extremist views? Or did they blow whatever political capital they had with efforts to link the current nominee with the damage from hurrican Katrina, among other things? Has Roberts shown the next nominee how to get through the hearings? Does anyone want to see the Democrats grandstanding again? Seems to me that if the Democrats had cozied up to Roberts, and asked softball questions and used his answers to define what a reasonable, fair justice should look like, then they might have been able to press the next nominee and drawn distinctions between him/her and Roberts. Their efforts to paint Roberts as extreme will make it hard, in my opinion, for the Democrats to paint the next nominee as extreme. I certainly hope that the President does not nominate a flame throwing radical for the next open seat, but I suppose he could, and I think he could get away with it.
Perhaps the best thing the Democrats could do at this time would be to vote for Roberts' confirmation, making the statement to the effect that we grilled him as hard as we could, and we found his answers in keeping with the spirit of a fair and impartial judiciary. But to try, at this point, to portray Roberts as an extremist only invites the President to call their bluff and nominate a real extremist for the next round.
Ann: Bush has struck me as a wannabe authoritarian right from his 2000 convention speech, and I've supported him reluctantly and primarily by default.Now Glenn Reynolds says he's found 'the damning Roberts quote'. It sure sounds that way to non-lawyer me. Do you have an opinion you'd care to share?
That is a good point peter.If Bush DOES nominate a real extremist next time, what will they say that they haven't already said about Roberts?Maybe 'we really mean it this time, for real'? :P
Anyway... Bush has cover now from the District Court in Sacramento and another idiotic Pledge ruling. Whatever the legal merits (if any) -- politically Bush can point out West and go "See now THAT'S what we're talking 'bout." Judge X (perhaps McConnell?) here won't be like that.
Post a Comment