Dammit. Bush fucked me over again. Roberts instead of Luttig. Aren't these two the same guy, for all intents and purposes? As for the nominee, John G. Roberts, Supreme Court expert Jeffrey Rosen's piece (on potential nominees) makes him out to be someone tolerable, someone with a judicious temperament, and not someone likely to be a wild-eyed right-wing judicial activist or a constitution-in-exile looney. Obviously he's quite conservative, but it's not as if Bush is gonna appoint Laurence Tribe.
Today's one of those days where I'm reminded of the old pre-Bush days, when knee-jerk lefties would drive me batty. The majority of commenters on the Daily Kos are already girding themselves for a fight to death on Roberts, demanding a fillibuster. Do they not realize that Kerry lost the election, and that of the potential nominees, Roberts is actually not among the worst? You only torpedo candidates that are truly outside the mainstream, and given how far right this country is at the moment, Roberts, from what I can tell, is not in Freeperland. Unless he's got skeletons in the closet or completely botches the confirmation hearings, let him go. There's bigger fish, or rather turd, to fry. Will nuking this nomination help the Dems win in 2006? Somehow, I don't think so, unless a dead male Russian ice skater is found naked in his bed.
Addendum: Today's NY Times gives a triple blow job to Roberts. But taken together, Rosen's piece and this lengthy profile make Roberts sound like as good a nominee as any non-wingnut could've hoped for from Bush, someone who has a healthy respect for the limits of the courts, and who has no history of being a radical activist ideologue. But will someone please hand David Brooks a tissue? Thanks.
