ConfirmThem

By Carol Platt Liebau Posted in Analysis and Predictions — Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

To echo what Andrew has written immediately below, we certainly do wish Judge Roberts all the best.

As I see it, the fact is that neither we -- nor anyone else, for that matter -- really knows whether he is less/more/as conservative as Justices Scalia and Thomas. Certainly, his intellect is dazzling. And just because there's no lengthy and outspoken record, we shouldn't be premature in extrapolating a tendency toward "squishiness" from his caution and care in responding to the Judiciary Committee and from his avoidance of controversy in his career. For all we know, he could be a Scalia or a Thomas . . .

Of course, the element of uncertainty is unsettling, but that's what comes of a nomination system under which, for years now, Republicans have been willing to confirm well-qualified albeit ideologically abhorrent liberals (Ginsburg, Breyer) -- while Democrats have behaved in bad faith on Republican presidents' Supreme Court picks since the Bork debacle in 1988.

One thing is clear: The President would do the country a great service by choosing a nominee with a clear and well-known judicial philosophy and track record. Because Republicans have been unwilling to risk a fight in the past, they have tended to choose justices like Kennedy and Souter -- who are either unknown or unthreatening to the left. As a result, some of our picks (with the honorable exception of the fabulous Clarence Thomas) have been disappointing surprises.

That's got to end. Unlike the days of Ronald Reagan (post 1986) and President George H.W. Bush, Republicans have a majority in the Senate -- and, with the rise of the "new media," a voice to fight back against MSM distortion. Why have 'em if we're not going to use 'em?

Here's hoping that President Bush's next pick is an unabashed strict constructionst (but one with the kind of demeanor and temperament that will show up disgraceful Democratic baiting and smear tactics for what they are).