George Bush's "re"-election assured at least one conservative justice on the court. The battle for that was over last November. Here are three reasons that Democrats should vote to oppose John Roberts' nomination, but avoid filibusters and other extreme tactics -- and allow him to be confirmed:
- He is qualified.
John Roberts is widely acknowleged to be a brilliant lawyer, and one who has argued frequently in the Supreme Court -- demonstrating deep knowledge of how issues are viewed and debated at that level. He doesn't have to have judicial experience, but he does.
Right now, Democrats have a legitimate and important complaint against the Bush administration: Bush and his people have put folks in important positions solely because of their political help, not just at FEMA but at places like the CPA. This is a point that must continue to be hammered home, not just for now, but for future Presidents of either party.
And fair or not, the Rove machine can take advantage of vigorous opposition to Roberts and say, "look how qualified this man is. Those Democrats claim they're interested in qualifications but this opposition clearly shows they just want to oppose the President on anything." We cannot, and must not, lose the high ground on our criticism of cronyism, and opposing Roberts could do that.
- The most important argument against him isn't simple to explain.
Roberts did a lot of work, and wrote a lot of memos for Republican causes, and he argued cases that contain scary opinions. In both cases, however, he can be said to have been doing his job rather than demonstrating his own feelings. I've seen some Dems parsing the words in documents ("look! he said 'apparently' they have this right!") but that's not going to fly in public debate over this nomination.
The most important argument against him, and one for which we have his judicial judgement, is that of Presidenial power. It's important, dangerous, and should alone be the basis for a heated opposition. Unfortunately, it's also a point which will be extremely difficult to convey to the public. Look at what has turned people off of Bush who previously supported him: it's inaction and contraditictions. Once the spotlight is on the question of whether or not Bush should be allowed to be decisive, some folks are going to see more Presidential power as a Good Thing. Yes, we can point to Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, but as clear as it is to me, I think it's too complicated an argument to get through to the public at large. Result? Charges of obstruction which, considering we have the ammunition to prevent lots of other legislative dangers (estate tax, SS "reform"), we do not need right now. Someone needs to put a lid on NARAL (boy, was that ad a mistake) and get everyone else to dial it down for this round.
- We need to save our opposition for the next nominee
As I said at the outset, Bush's "re"-election virtually guaranteed a conservative justice would be nominated. Now, with Justice Rehnquist's death and Robert's nomination for his position, we're looking at a wash, more or less, in terms of the balance of the court.
But with the next nomination -- to fill Justice O'Connor's seat -- we're in greater danger. A right-wing justice for that position is unacceptable, as is someone the right doesn't like: Gonzalez. Now, there are some that think Bush will nominate a moderate. I disagree, but I would also argue that the risk is too great to chance it. I think the fact that Bush has said he will delay the second nomination until the Roberts hearing are done is a sign of danger -- no deal will be made, or if one is -- he will renege. I think he will nominate someone we are going to want to oppose with everything in our arsenal. That means we need an arsenal; and if we spend capital opposing a qualified, well-liked guy, we aren't going to have what we need later. That's just pragmatism talking.
We lost one when Bush was elected. Let's focus our criticism, for now, on issues related to Katrina and Iraq -- and save our filibuster threats, attack ads, and political chips for that second nomination.