Sen. Reid has announced he'll vote against Roberts. WaPo is reporting that the Dems are rejecting the intelligent strategy urged by the Post (and the LA Times!) itself in favor of just stamping their little feet against anything Bush ever says or does, ever.
Some Democrats and outside groups say party members should support Roberts to present a moderate front while saving energy for an all-out battle in case President Bush's next Supreme Court nominee is even more conservative. But many liberal groups and party donors are pressing Democrats to show as much solidarity against Roberts as they can. Not only does Roberts's conservative philosophy deserve it, they argue, but it also would serve as a warning to Bush that they will fight vigorously if he names someone even further to the right to succeed centrist Justice Sandra Day O'Connor later this fall.
That certainly comports with intelligence received from one of Roberts' handlers at a dinner on Friday. He's looking for the number to be about 60. I am actually happy about this, as I hope it will embolden the President to seek a Sandy Day replacement who won't be silently good, but will actually pick a few fights (if the Dems are going to call Roberts and extremist, there's nothing to be gained by keeping quiet). The debate over judicial philosophy is the most important one of our time, the people either are or can be educated to our side, and the time has come to actually have it and stop using semaphore during confirmation hearings. Holding fire until his first appointment got on the Court makes sense, but I agree with this Powerline post about Bush's next appointment. To revive an old slogan, "Bring it on."
