I am not one who believes in Bush-Rove infallibility. Given my lack of faith in their competence and their ability to control outcomes, I think it's possible that, given the fact that Judge Roberts does NOT belong to the Federalist society, given the fact that he's been praised by many liberal lawyers who know him well, including
Lawrence Tribe and
Seth Waxman, and given the fact that he has no history of being a religious ideologue, or a "constitution in exile" ideologue, I am open to the possibility that Bush, while thinking he has picked a Thomas-Scalia extreme conservative, has actually picked another Justice Kennedy, or perhaps even another Justice Souter (although I think the Kennedy model is more likely).
It also seems to me that, barring a some horrific revelation about his background, Roberts will be confirmed rather easily. And perhaps that's a good thing, because if Roberts goes down, who will come next? Edith Jones? Janice Rogers Brown? Michael Luttig? Samuel Alito? Pretty much every Judge on the Supreme Court short list (with the possible exception of Alberto Gonzalez, who has his own issues), will be worse for the right to choose, and worse for civil rights, than Judge Roberts.
So, in light of this reality, does it really make sense to filibuster Roberts? As a member of the reality based community, I have to answer "no." We should draw clear lines on good Dem issues like "choice" and the environment, but we should not filibuster.
But that doesn't mean I'm not prepared to fight. And I have a strategy in mind. The fire breathing wingnuts are swallowing Roberts based on their belief that Bush and Rove know what they're doing and have gone out of their way to pick someone who will satisfy their right wing ideological desires.
But they don't really know that for sure. And, underneath the public statements of support, there is a lot of nervousness among wingnut true believers. Many of them are muttering that Roberts is at best a George Herbert Walker Bush Republican, i.e., a guy who was pro-choice until he joined Reagan's presidential ticket.
I say, let's play on the right-wingers' insecurities, and try to split their coalition apart. What would happen if we unearthed story after story of Robert's past moderation, rather than tales of past right-wing activism? What if we let it be known that we (the left wing bloggers) think that Roberts will be another Souter, or at least another Kennedy?
What if we had people like Lawrence Tribe and Seth Waxman go the to press and say that, based on their knowledge of Judge Roberts, they believe he will be a great jurist in the mold of Justices Kennedy and Souter?
Mu guess is that the hard-right wingnuts are going to start getting nervous and angry, and they're going to start taking out their nervous anger on Bush. "Betrayal," may be a word we start to hear from their lips.
So, let's use the ju-jitsu strategy and turn our opponents' strengths against them. Let's use Roberts to drive a WEDGE between Bush and his hard right supporters, by breaking their bond of trust.
It's the least we can do, since Roberts is obviously going to be confirmed (barring a thermonuclear ethics disclosure), and I'm not convinced at this point that that's such a bad thing, considering the realistic alternatives.
So who's with me on this?
Update [2005-7-24 22:27:25 by pontificator]: A commenter reminds me that Billmon had this same thought a few days ago:
But Frau Koch's slam on Judge Roberts has given me a germ (so to speak) of an idea. Since the guy is probably going to be confirmed anyway, maybe the Dems should praise him instead of slamming him. Talk about his tolerance and his respect for diversity. Congratulate Bush for picking such a moderate, fair-minded jurist -- one who has already testified that Roe v Wade is "settled law." Tell the world they're overjoyed the president selected a nominee who can reach across the partisan divide, instead of some extremist skin job with a radical religious agenda. Smother Roberts in some hot, juicy Demo love.
Say that kind of stuff often and loud enough, and it might plant some seeds of doubt in those tiny wing-nut minds: "If the filthy 'rats like him so much, he mus' be some kinda librul."
Who knows? If enough of the "base" starts talking like Frau Koch, it might even force Roberts and his GOP support team to drop the warm and cuddly spin, and demonstrate just how much of a hardliner the guy really is -- thereby stripping some of the radar cloaking off the Stealth nominee. But frantic efforts to polish up Roberts's ultra-right credentials might further feed wing-nut paranoia about the guy: "If he's one of us, how come they gotta keep defendin' him alla time? And why don' his forehead slope down like ourn?"