Via Sam Rosenfeld, this bit from Mark Tushnet on the Roberts nomination is very much worth reading:
At this point, there's no reason for a Democrat to vote to confirm Judge Roberts. My argument has two steps: the first is that Democrats should disagree with what they know about Judge Roberts' constitutional philosophy ... and in this connection it's irrelevant that that vision is not “out of the mainstream.” The second step of the argument is that all senators should have a reason for voting to confirm a nomination, and neither the fact that the president picked this person nor the fact that this person is an extremely talented lawyer is a sufficient reason to overcome disagreement with the nominee's vision of the Constitution.
Excited italics are, of course, mine. But this is an important point. A fair gathering of liberal legal scholars have emerged to assure us that John Roberts is the sort of maniacal nutball that should send us diving for the Senate's self-destruct button. But calming though these editorials are, we shouldn't overstate their point. John Roberts is probably not an unreasonable nominee for Bush to back. But neither is he a reasonable nominee for Democrats to support.
The man is dedicated to a deeply different, often regressive, and profoundly limited role for the Courts. In this time of conservative politico-judicial ascendance, that may be the best we can get, but it's not something we should pretend we want. Unless Roberts gives some indication that supports the ideals that Democrats exist to uphold, he shouldn't be installed on the bench with any sort of Democratic imprimatur. He may not be crazy enough to stop (though the hearings could certainly change that), but neither is he progressive enough to support. So for 25 Democrats to already be hinting themselves in the "aye" column, hearings unheard, is a pretty sad commentary on the party's commitment to its beliefs in the face of punditocracy pressure.
