To Fight or Not to Fight?

Democratic Minority Leader Harry Reid has signaled his intention to vote against the Roberts’ nomination to be Chief Justice of the United States. What was illuminating about his comments on the Senate floor was not his declared intent to vote "nay", rather his comments following that, which were basically an acknowledgment that Judge Roberts’ confirmation is inevitable and he will not be orchestrating a Democratic filibuster or even encourage his caucus to vote against Judge Roberts. Such an approach is a result of the rock and a hard place he and Senate Democrats find themselves at this juncture. All but the most liberal and partisan have no choice but to admit that, in the words of David Broder, Judge Roberts is "so obviously– ridiculously– well-equipped to lead the government’s third branch" that widespread Democratic opposition is unjustifiable. Yet on the other hand there is the common demand from those far-left interest groups that Senate Democrats fight tooth-and-nail against the judge’s confirmation. Such a tug-of-war is likely to leave us with many more Harry Reid-type positions; acknowledgment that Judge Roberts is supremely qualified and certain to be confirmed but resigned to casting a symbolic but futile vote against him solely to appease the fringe elements of the base.

Why Democrats feel handcuffed in this way is another matter. It is no secret that the real battle over the Supreme Court will be over the president’s next nomination to fill the vacant seat of retiring justice Sandra Day O’Connor. With this in mind why are Democrats spending so much capitol on the current vacancy knowing full well that it is all for naught? They are going to need all the capitol they can get for the upcoming nomination, and then some. So knee-jerk has Democratic opposition to the president’s judicial nominations become that the public now expects Democrats to blindly oppose any nominee regardless of who they might be. A majority of "nay" votes against Judge Roberts only confirms this perception as reality. Further, it diminishes any credibility Democrats presumably would have had when rising in opposition to the next nominee, the one who will truly change the direction of the Court. The fable of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" comes to mind.

Far be it from me to give advice to the Democrats, but if they want to be in a strong position to stop the president’s second nominee they should rise in support of his current one. Lending overwhelming, bipartisan support to the Roberts nomination will give the Democrats what will be requisite for waging successful opposition down the road-----the illusion of reasonableness and credibility. They don’t have it now and they certainly won’t have it should a majority of the caucus capitulate to the base and vote against John Roberts’ nomination to be the next Chief Justice.

UPDATE (12:45 P.M. 9/21/05): Wise move senator, wise move.

UPDATE (12:53 P.M. 9/21/05): The price of disobeying your master:

When John Roberts becomes Chief Justice and votes to erode or overturn longstanding Supreme Court precedents protecting fundamental civil rights, women's rights, privacy, religious liberty, reproductive rights and environmental safeguards, Senator Leahy's support for Roberts will make him complicit in those rulings, and in the retreat from our constitutional rights and liberties.

--People for the American Way Chairman Ralph Neas

With all due respect Mr. Neas, get a grip.