I was a critic of the "Gang of 14" deal that prevented a Senate showdown on 86ing the filibuster, thinking Democrats got nothing in return for letting Republicans slam through some judges who had no business being confirmed.
I think I was wrong.
I don't know about new Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. He's obviously conservative, but we knew that would be the case, correct? He's obviously personally against abortion and may even vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. (I'm no fan of abortion myself; while I believe Roe v. Wade should stand, the zealousness of some pro-choice advocates makes me uncomfortable. You might get the impression that they think abortion is a good thing.) He seems anti-environment. In short, not my kind of guy.
But, but, but, but, but... at least with this guy there appears to be a chance of moderation. He may be a foaming-at-the-mouth extremist, but so far it doesn't seem that way. And the fact that he was chosen instead of some of the more extreme candidates available may be due to the filibuster deal that seemed so stupid just a few months ago.
Think about it. If Dems make the filibuster showdown and lose, Bush can nominate Pat Robertson or Pat Buchanon to the Supreme Court and thumb his nose at the powerless Dems squawking in the corner. The sheep Senate Republicans go along, the American people plan their vacations, and more rights are slowly stripped away.
I'd also like to give a shout out to Karl Rove here, as his loose lips may have helped in this matter, too. The White House certainly sped up the nomination process, and may have chosen to shy away from the hardcore candidate at a time when their credibility is double zero.