I am really late with this and I should be severely chastised because it is a well thought-out and expressed post. Joe Gandelman has stepped back and, as he says in his e-mail to me, taken a "loooooooooong stand-back analysis of the next nominee and the perils for the Democrats." Joe says that this should spark some debate. But none from me because I need to study Joe's post for awhile and he is also a lot smarter than I, therefore caution rules. He examines the Roberts nomination/confirmation process, Roberts' endorsements as well as his opposition.
While Joe notes that "One of the trends that jumps out in these posts and stories is that it appears that the leaderships of both parties don't want a bloodletting on Supreme Court nominations but both parties face pressures from their activist bases to take stronger ideological stands," I have to believe that, at least in the Roberts case, the Democrats have nothing with which to object except knee-jerk pandering to their base. That won't include enough Democrats to even make the vote a contest. 6 or 8 "defections", meaning Democrats capable of independent thought and action, and Roberts wins by a small landslide.
It will be the next one that will create the battle royal. If Bush truly has the guts of a consummate poker player, he'll bet the house on a true conservative and let the chips fall. He'll challenge the Democrats as well as the "gang of 7" to filibuster and then vote cloture. Let's see who blinks first. Obviously, after the Katrina disaster and the recent arrest of his OMB director, his position is not as strong as it was. However, a wounded bull is far more dangerous to fight than one who enters the battle completely healthy. We'll see.
TAGS: Bush, SCOTUS, Roberts, conservative, filibuster