Redstate

I completely agree with you on this.

If the Democrats choose to fight to the death over this the only thing they will achieve is a more strident Conservative to replace O'Connor.

The Democrats CANNOT win this one.  I seriously doubt they could even get a cloture-proof fillibuster.

If I'm in charge of Democratic strategy on this I have the unabashed Democrats(ie Kennedy, Shumer, Lautenburg, Feinstein, Boxer, etc) vote against him .  And that's it.  This allows the Democrats to show that, even though the true believers don't like this guy, they put aside their differences for the good of the country.

Ideally you have the final vote come out somewhere around 80-88 in favor.

NO WAY you make guys like Obama or Corzine or Bayh vote against him.

This nomination process is over - time to move on, as they say.

You've correctly characterized it, only I'd go one step further. I think the democrat's strategy discussions now focus on two courses.

First, a vote similar to the 80-90 for, although if they choose this course, it may be as low as 65-70, to keep faith with the base. That, of course creates an issue for the 2006 elections.

Second, which I think is indicated by several comments and attitude changes during the hearings, is to go with a 95-100, near unanimous vote. Given the recent (Ginsburg, Scalia) votes, this gives the democrats some useful strategic weapons.

Whoever is next, and for that matter, the next few nominees, can be held to the Roberts standard, which, if perfect, is unreachable. Also, it preserves a great deal of horse trading behind the scenes by showing a compromise, even though it appears as a Bush victory. The compromise being zero shenanigans for this go round. There hasn't been a peep from the hill about anything remotely untoward or bizarre. The "didn't provide answers or papers" is well within a mainstream and justifiable criticism (even if some of us think it's factually nonsensical - the nature of the claim is legitimate, but unsupported).

I think the vote may be the latter - it may be too tempting for Schumer to avoid being able to gain a reasonableness chit for later use, and I cannot see him wanting to be in a 10 vote minority.

RedState, and the Media at large, has been quite excited about the process thus far, I haven't see any indication that we shouldn't expect a 90 something vote in favor. There has been nothing more than pomp and circumstance thus far with Democrats quickly changing the topic to things like Katrina and the economy when they can. I'm curious if Leon really thinks there is a remote chance a significant portion of Democrats will really challenge this nomination. There is too little at stake here to exchange Roberts for some other conservative.

1. Roberts comes off as eminently reasonable to most Americans.  Putting up a big fight against him makes it exceedingly difficult to say that you're only opposing "extreme" judges.  Most people aren't going to buy it, and as a result it will make it harder to garner the public support that would help put an end to a truly extreme nominee in the future.  This is especially important now that Roberts is replacing Rheinquist and the O'Connor seat is the one that's open.
   
2. As Leon points out, Roberts is probably the very best nominee that we on the Left can expect from this President.  It can only get worse from here.

I'm a fairly good judge of people and their interpersonal reactions. Not perfect, but pretty good. In watching this committee over the last three days solid, I think Kohl may be the one and only donk who will vote for Roberts. And even he may not.

We'll know a lot more in a week.

The best I have read all day.

I too hope that all the Democrats unite and vote against Roberts. However, I am predicting a vote of around 85 for approval. Although, I have heard that most if not all of the Democrats on the committee plan to vote against him, so lets hope that it carries over to the full senate and the Democrats prove that they will vote against anyone, no matter how qualified.

If, as Krauthammer suspects, Robers is actually to the left of Rehnquist, the Dems would be very wise indeed to vote for him.

However, I don't think they can resist it.

I think the committee vote will be 10-8, and the Senate vote won't be any more than 62-38.

In so doing, the Dems will all but guarantee someone like Edith Jones as the next pick.

Serves 'em right...

Great piece, Leon!

You're hoping that most Democrats will be "reasonable," whereas the letter writer is hoping that Democrats will hand Bush a perceived political advantage by voting unanimously against Roberts, and thus enable Bush to nominate someone like Garza for the other seat.

The only concern for Bush, really, is that he nominates someone who doesn't get filibustered. I really don't think he cares how many Democrats vote for or against.

....all your (not YOU specifically, necessarily) railing against the Democrats giving whatever nominee the hardest time imaginable is what you actually desire than what you really deplore?

This is very hypocritical when you think about it. You should either bless the Democrats' right to vigorously oppose all nominees they disagree with and vote against them (and given all the carping on this website that they're dragging the poor man through the sewer, you don't really bless this behavior), or you hope for Democratic support. You don't complain about how hard the Democrats are being and then hope they continue being that way.

We know they're going to do it anyway, so we hope at least that the President gets the right message from it.

If Roberts gets less than 65 votes, Bush has carte blanche for the next pick, and the one after that. The Hatch and Coburn closing questions/statements to the last panel of witnesses were the warning shots to the democrats on the committee.

In essence, since the lobbyists themselves admit ANY nominee GOP is unacceptable, if the committee goes along with them and votes no on Roberts, why not just have the next pick  test nuclear option fight here and now.

I doubt he is the best Nominee that Democrats could get. I am sure there are many others who would be much better.

Also, I do not see any reason why you think it will be supported by democrats. Just looks liek you are try to convince people it will. Self-fulfilling prophecy that is.

Don't come back. This is your final attempt before we contact your ISP to report you for abuse of services.

And no, it won't help if you actually make an effort to change your username. Or put in a new email address.

The purpose of the Senate is to advise and consent. This does not mean only allow people who you agree with. They should be able to look at Roberts and see that he is brilliant and well qualified and vote for him. However, the Democrats (at least those in the committee) dont care how qualified he is unless he is a left wing activist. Therefore, my point is that this would prove that the Democrats will vote against any nominee that is conservative. Many Republicans have voted for liberals (Ginsberg who receive 96 votes and was far more outspoken then is Roberts) even though they disagreed with them philosophically, because they felt they were qualified. I only ask that the Democrats either do the same or admit that they dont care about qualifications only about being able to pick somebody as radical as they are philosophy.

between myself and Leon.  But I think Leon is being sincere in his belief that the Democrats trying to make this a knockdown drag out fight will actually hurt them.

The truth of the matter is that, barring something really explosive coming out, Roberts is a done deal.    The Democrats can fight it still but the only thing they will do is show how ineffectual they are and "uncompromising" they are.  

By fully voting to confirm Roberts, after a bunch of faux protests, they show that they are willing to compromise and also don't expose the fact that the only power they have is in the hands of the Gang of 14.

The President doesn't care how many Democrats vote in favor or Roberts per se.  But he does care about what the political climate will be for the NEXT appointee.   By keeping their gun in the holster and extending an olive branch the Democrats reserve the "extraordinary circumstances" card for someone that could be far more disconcerting, like Garza or, god forbid, Janice Brown.

In any competition, be it politics, sport or war, you must always plan to attack where your opponent is weak not where they are strong.  This battle is over.  The Democratic leadership, I suspect, know this.  Without a smoking Bork type paper the Democrats have nothing to fire at Roberts.  So it's time to move on.  Placate the base with some hard questions.  

....Democrats are better off with an unknown rather than a known in Bush's case anyway.