I have heard all the arguments about "keeping our powder dry" and how this vote is not about this nominee, but about the next nominee.
Spare me.
A 78-22 vote, with more than HALF (!!!) the Dem caucus voting yea, shows that we can mount no credible opposition to an administration and a Republican party that has no interest in honest deliberation and careful consideration for a lifetime appointment to the highest judicial office in the nation. I'm not suggesting we should have filibustered, but a quiet, party-line vote would have sent a message that we oppose Roberts, but not to the level of a filibuster.
Here are the consequences of this vote:
- When Bush nominates the O'Connor replacement, he knows that we will have no credibility to oppose a nominee that is just like Roberts. Plus, they can stall, withhold documents, and the nominee can refuse to answer questions about his or her (it'll probably be a her) views on important precedents without any consequences whatsoever. You think Roberts was an empty vessel, wait until the next nominee. They've got the winning formula and they're going to use it; mark my words.
- We can no longer take NARAL to task for doing stupid things like endorsing Lincoln Chafee. When we say, "He voted to confirm Roberts," Chafee replies with, "Yeah, well so did Pat Leahy and half the Democrats".
- If the next nominee is similar in qualifications and conservative disposition as Roberts, how do we credibly mount a filibuster to protect a pro-privacy majority? What, Roberts was OK, but this nominee is absolutely out of the mainstream? Who are we kidding?
When are we going to wake up and realize that there is no advantage WHATSOEVER in this "bipartisan" bullshit. Deference to the President? Bullshit. Elections have consequences? Yes, but you voting with your opponent is not required.
We're like Charlie Brown with Lucy and the damn football. Every time Republicans cry about how partisan Democrats are and how we are obstructionists, we get all mushy about bipartisanship and start to try to forge a compromise in the hopes that we'll get some piece of policy that is wingnut territory bad back to being just moderately bad and that maybe, just maybe, they won't go after our moderates in the next election.
Ask the 1900 families of our young men and women who died in the sands of Iraq how well that strategy worked out for them.
Ask Max Cleland and Jean Carnahan how well that strategy worked out for them.
It is time for an opposition party to finally, finally OPPOSE!!!
And I'm not saying every single vote needs to be party line. A broken clock is right twice a day, after all. But when it comes to important votes like confirmation of the GODDAMN CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE FREAKING UNITED STATES (!!!!), opposition matters. Where you stand matters. Even if the outcome isn't in doubt, whether you are willing to fight for your beliefs matters.
Otherwise, we have no credibility. Who will believe us when we say we care about a pro-privacy Supreme Court majority. We just gave the game away.