Even though George W. Bush's approval rating has plummeted further in the wake of Hurricane Katrina (down to 40% in the latest poll), it would be wise for the Democrats to save their ammo (and their energy) for the next Supreme Court nominee and let the Roberts nomination go through. Here's why:
- Roberts is a lock for Senate approval, at the very least along party lines.
- Even as Chief Justice, Roberts is still only one vote on a panel of nine. At worst, it would be the same vote Rehnquist would cast.
- It would therefore be a mistake to mount a filibuster. Express your concerns, Dems, and vote no, but don't compromise your credibility.
- The nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Conner is the swing vote on contentious isssues like abortion and assisted suicide. It's unlikely that Bush will be able to find a nominee with Roberts' appeal and legal bona fides. That's the time to pull out all the stops, even a filibuster.
That said, there are good reasons to oppose Roberts, not the least of which is Marie Cocco's suggestion in today's O that he may be willing to allow the President to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. That means that the government can throw into jail anyone it deems a threat to national security and keep them there indefinitely-- without evidence, which is what habeas corpus demands. (I can't find the link to that column, but it's there, front and center, on the op-ed page of the Sept. 15 edition of the Oregonian. It begins: President of king?)
In a previous column, Cocco calls Roberts an Archie Bunker, which is neither a compliment nor a recommendation:
"John Roberts' self-portrait has been revealed, and it turns out the Supreme Court nominee bears a keen resemblance to a most familiar American character. He is Archie Bunker with a pedigree."
But those attitudes date back a couple of decades. He certainly has not come across as a bigot in the Senate hearings.
So, let me repeat my advice: Dems, hold your fire. Save it for the next, and more important, nominee.
Comments