There are a lot of good reasons not to go full-out against a Roberts nomination. The hope that he's a "liberal" isn't one of them.
That's why I was shocked to read Kos's latest post this morning. He thinks Roberts will be a "Souter-type on the Supreme Court"? What was he smoking?
Others showed Roberts even more love. Apparently some think that Roberts' confirmation would be a "tremendous victory for the left" while others are convinced he is a "liberal."
(more in extended entry)
Roberts may be many things, but he's no liberal. He's as conservative as they come. How am I so sure? I don't know Roberts personally. But my conservative law school classmates and acquaintances are thrilled with Roberts. Former clerks for Thomas and Scalia think he's a great appointment. Some of my most conservative friends--the ones who have positions in the Federalist Society and liken abortion to the Holocaust--were hoping Bush would appoint him.
Why are they so happy? Because Roberts is a very known quantity to them. He's been part of the D.C. legal elite for decades, so the right-wing legal network doesn't have to worry about some unknown. Plus Roberts doesn't have a paper trial--purposely--so they're confident he can be confirmed. When I asked one of my friends about Coulter's column suggesting Roberts was an unknown, he laughed.
I think the right is going to laugh all the way to the bank if Roberts is confirmed. Trust me, my pals wouldn't be happy unless Roberts was the fourth vote against Roe. There are some reasons not to go all-out against Roberts--we may never get anyone better from Bush, for instance--but he's no liberal, that's for sure.
I'm sure I'm not the only Kossack with friends who are part of the right-wing legal elite. Anyone else out there have stories and conversations to share? Let's put this "Roberts is the next Souter" meme to rest right now.