Inappropriate Content: John Roberts

I am still reading about Roberts. There's a lot of stuff out there to read. The best big-picture analysis is Lyle Denniston's commentary on John Roberts:

Because Roberts is a nominee of President Bush, and the product of a selection process over which conservative activists had a major influence, there will be a tendency in some circles to suggest that he will find a natural place on the bench with Scalia and Thomas (the President's favorites among the sitting Justices). That assumes that he will come under the influence, primarily, of those two.

It would be natural for Roberts to grow comfortable casting his vote alongside Rehnquist. But that is not likely to be a long-term proposition, given the Chief's health, and it is not likely to shape him in a mold that would fit for years to come.

Thus, the possibility is a Court in the new Term starting in October that has Scalia and Thomas, joined somewhat loosely by Rehnquist, on the most conservative wing, Justices Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens on the most liberal wing, and Roberts somewhat loosely aligned in the center with Kennedy and Breyer.

This does not represent a foolish dream of a moderate or a liberal who wants to hang onto a Court that would be no more conservative than the present Nine. Instead, it is a realistic possibility that could come from the style and instincts of "Justice" Roberts, who is more conservative than either O'Connor or Powell.

Why Kennedy? Why Breyer?...

Read the whole thing. Meanwhile, Carpetbagger has the practical analysis down (culled from three posts, here, here, here):

The strategy wasn't exactly subtle. Karl Rove's role in a massive White House scandal was dominating political discussion in Washington and causing real concern with the public. We weren't supposed to see a Supreme Court nominee until next week, or perhaps even early August, but, as one Republican strategist put it, an earlier announcement "helps take Rove off the front pages for a week."...

For me, this is largely a question of pragmatism. We have a conservative president and a Senate with a 55-seat Republican majority. If Dems are to successfully block any Supreme Court nominee, we would first need to keep all 45 Dems together. That is no small feat; the New York Times reported today that Joe Lieberman said before the nomination that that "he was likely to support Mr. Roberts if he was nominated." Chances are, Lieberman isn't the only Dem who'd consider breaking ranks.

Putting that aside, even if the caucus was united against a nominee, Dems would need to either a) peel off six Republican votes; or b) successfully filibuster the nominee, while steering clear of the nuclear option. If this isn't likely to happen, we need to act and plan accordingly. Wasting resources to beat a nominee who is going to win doesn't make a lot of sense.

I've heard from several Dem friends today, many of whom have suggested that Roberts is a nightmare nominee. He's not. Roberts is a conservative partisan, but he's not James Dobson with a law degree. Through the course of the confirmation process, it's certainly possible that damaging and embarrassing revelations will come to light that could put his nomination in jeopardy. If it does, Dems will have a responsibility to take a firm stand. Short of that, however, Dems need to do their due diligence but consider the fact that an all-out judicial war is not only unwise in this case, it's also likely to fail.

There are certain lines Dems cannot allow Republicans to cross — I don't think this is one of them...

I realize that most conservatives are pleased with John Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court, but Orrin Hatch seems to believe Bush's choice may be holier than thou. Literally.
Throughout the day, Democrats stressed that Roberts, 50, could spend 30 or more years on the court and that it is essential to scrutinize his record and philosophies. "A preliminary review of Judge Roberts's record suggests areas of significant concern that need exploration," Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), the Judiciary Committee's top Democrat, said in a floor speech. "We need to know what kind of Supreme Court justice John Roberts would be. I hope the White House and the nominee will work with us and cooperate so that all relevant matters can be constructively explored." […]

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) [responded] more colorfully. "It's a little bit like biblical Pharisees, you know, who basically are always trying to undermine Jesus Christ," he said on Fox News. (emphasis added)
...Hatch may also want to check his history a little closer. The Pharisees were self-righteousness hypocrites. If Hatch is looking for politicians in Washington for whom this description applies...

And, finally (don't you love quote fests?) here's a reader on Andrew Sullivan's blog:

Last night, I saw Howard Fineman call Roberts a 'brilliant' pick on one of the cable shows because he is the most conservative candidate Bush could appoint without sparking a battle with Democrats. As usual, Fineman is astonishingly wrong. A better way to characterize Roberts is: the most moderate and uncontroversial candidate Bush could appoint without sparking a battle with James Dobson and the Christianists.

Three months ago the President would have delighted in jamming an untra conservative like Janice Rogers Brown down the Senate's throat while invoking the nuclear option and spitting in each Democratic senator's eye. Fast forward to this week, when he was forced to accept a late night visit from Arlen Spector, who had the audacity to demand that Bush replace O'Conner with a "moderate justice" in order to "maintain the balance." This the same Spector who was on his knees vowing fealty to the President just last year.

The Roberts nomination is not a sign that Bush is finally getting "sensible" on judicial matters. It's an indication of just how politically weak he's become. Roberts is just conservative enough to squeeze by the Dobson crowd without howls of anger. He is arguably the least conservative of Bush's "short list" of nominees. Clearly, Bush and Rove were terrified about losing this battle to the Democrats and moderate Republican senators. Having lost already social security and with the Rove scandal boiling, such a loss would be too devastating to contemplate.

Roberts may turn out to be an extremely conservative justice who votes to strike down Roe v. Wade and many other liberal favorites. The fact that we're not certain about this must be a bitter pill for Dobson and friends, however.

And of course there's a whole lot more on John Roberts out there. For now, though, take heart from this Roll Call article:

Less than 15 hours after President Bush announced that John Roberts would be his nominee for the Supreme Court, leading Democrats stood before a bank of television cameras Wednesday and criticized the president. But their ire had nothing to do with Roberts.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) assailed the president for failing to punish Karl Rove for his alleged involvement in disclosing the name of a CIA operative...

"A Supreme Court nominee will not distract the country from the growing credibility problem at the White House," Democrats were told to echo, according to a copy of the leadership memo obtained by Roll Call. "If Bush wants to know what Karl Rove and Scooter Libby did or did not do, he should call them into his office and ask them. It's time for President Bush to show some leadership."

Confirmation hearings are weeks away, so here's to Boxer and Harman, keeping the eye on the ball.