I searched for a diary on this, and was shocked to find it undiaried so far. If I missed it, let me know and I'll take it down.
In a story sure to anger many on the left, the Washington Post has a front page story in tomorrow's edition stating that Dems are unlikely to seriously challenge the nomination of John Roberts.
More on the flip...
As the Post puts it:
Democrats have decided that unless there is an unexpected development in the weeks ahead, they will not launch a major fight to block the Supreme Court nomination of John G. Roberts Jr., according to legislators, Senate aides and party strategists.
This decision seems to be based largely on political reality. Namely, Dems are pretty sure that Republicans have the votes to confirm, and more importantly, the votes to stop a filibuster:
Although they expect to subject President Bush's nominee to tough questioning at confirmation hearings next month, members of the minority party said they do not plan to marshal any concerted campaign against Roberts because they have concluded that he is likely to get at least 70 votes -- enough to overrule parliamentary tactics such as a filibuster that could block the nominee.
The article cites an unofficial whip count, which gives Republicans 56 likely votes, with another 17 or so seemingly likely to support the nomination, barring extraordinary new information. (note: whip count should be taken with a grain of salt given that the whip is Mitch "Wait, we didn't have enough votes to stop the John Bolton filibuster?" McConnell).
Dems plan on questioning Roberts throroughly, but appear to see the hearings mainly as an opportunity to win over voters.
Democrats said that instead of mounting a headlong assault on Roberts, they plan to use the hearings and the surrounding attention by the news media to remind voters of their party's values, including the protection of rights for individual Americans. The plan calls for emphasizing rights beyond abortion in an effort to appeal to a broader swath of the electorate.
.
No mention in the article of what those rights would be, and the description seems ambiguous enough to either suggest an attempt to move to the right to win over "values" voters, or an effort to stress free speech, economic rights, Torture prohibitions etc. Rights that this administration has not been kind toward.
Personally, I reluctantly agree with the decision. I'm in the camp who thinks that a lack of respect for a right to privacy and a belief in school prayer are extremely serious issues that may be worth challenging Roberts on alone. But I also realize that the chances of derailing the Roberts nomination are very slim, that doing so risks painting the Party as obstructionists, and that, if Dems somehow succeeded, the replacement nomination would likely be even worse. And at this point, I'm pretty sure any nomination Bush would put forth would be Anti-privacy and school prayer.
The decision to use the hearings and media coverage to attempt to connect with voters seems like a smart one to me, as long as that attempt doesn't focus on showing that we're close to Republicans. Poll numbers, Iraq, Cindy Sheehan, Social Security, everything has been bad for the Republicans lately, and I understand the desire to avoid inadvertently giving Republicans a boost by overreaching on this nomination.
I guess in the end, I think this is the wisest course to take when facing a brilliant choice by the Bush Administration, although I'm sure many, many here will disagree with me.