Look, guys, I don't want to do this. I really don't. I'd like to kick back, pop open a Boddington's (GREAT English beer), and watch Rove get frog-marched out of the White House on Fox News. But this idea that we've somehow scored a victory with this Roberts nomination is totally absurd.
What in this guys history gives us the idea that he's anywhere to the left of Scalia? Is it because he wrote that Roe v Wade was "wrongly decided?" Is it his argument that affirmative action laws are unconstitutional? Is it the shifting morality of his decision to throw out U.S. soldiers' lawsuit against the Iraqi government once we owned it? Or was it his ruling that police can search your trunk without probable cause?
To be blunt, this "wait and see" attitude smacks of intellectual dishonesty. By that I mean we seem to be willing to accept, for the moment at least, that his case history as an attorney isn't indicative of how he would rule as a Supreme Court justice. But why? I mean, we went nuclear over Gonzales because he wrote the torture memo. I didn't hear us saying, "well, he's an attorney for the administration! That doesn't mean he actually endorses torture! He's just being a lawyer!" If that excuse wasn't good enough for a temporary presidential nominee, why is it good enough for a lifetime appointment?
Maybe there are good reasons out there, and I just haven't heard them. I guess at the end of the day I keep asking myself the same question. "What in this guys past gives us the idea that we've won?" Is it because he's the `devil we only kinda know?' That's a pretty low bar, isn't it?
From where I'm standing it looks an awful lot like we just got our asses handed to us. By threatening us with a known extremist judge, and scaring us off with the filabuster fight, the right has us thinking we've won because they've nominated a lesser-known extremist judge. If I told you guys 6 months ago that Bush would nominate someone who the Religious Right thinks is a great judge...I mean, what else would you need to know? If I add to that the comments that he made regarding the "wrongly decided" case of Roe v Wade, we'd be done, right? Nuke him!
Seriously, I'm not trying to be a dickhole, but...how did we win again? I don't need a long, passionate exegesis on why this guy's better than that guy. Just throw me a bone here. Give me something, anything in this guy's record that tells me he's not a wingnut, and I'll happily go back to my beer and my frog-march watch.
But if there's not anything, then may I humbly suggest that we ring the bell, because Round 1 starts today, not in September.