The Dems Dumb Strategy for the Next Nominee

The wacky left is desperate to gin up "nay" votes against Judge Roberts. Can they defeat him? No. Can they alter the course Bush will follow with the next nominee? They think so, but they are wrong.

One week after John Roberts' hearings ended and one day after the Judiciary Committee approved his nomination by a bipartisan vote of 13-5, the chief justice-designate is the object of two debates, one among liberals and one among conservatives. Each debate is very revealing, and each has the same concern: the president's next pick.

This week, 40 Washington left-wing special interest lobbyists marched into the U.S. Capitol to meet with the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada. Was it to express sincere concern over Judge Roberts? No. Their demand was that the minority leader get as many "nay" votes on Mr. Roberts as possible. They knew he was unbeatable, but they wanted to send a message to the White House about the next nominee. Mr. Reid complied. He promptly announced that he would vote against Judge Roberts and then made clear that he would do it again if the president chose someone next time not approved by the big people who hold the strings. Even pro-Roberts liberal Democrats like Pat Leahy of Vermont and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin are just setting themselves up to vote against the next nominee.

The liberal debate is simple because, to put it bluntly, Democrats lost the 2004 election and then they lost the filibuster in May. Their debate is not over Judge Roberts's merits. In fact, even the best liberal opposition to Judge Roberts first concedes that he is excellent, and then it reveals its true concern: whether Chief Justice Roberts will rule their way on this or that. Often, the ideologue's goal is put in colorful language such as "He will turn back the clock." What liberals mean by that, of course, is that they fear that George W. Bush's nominee might move the clock at all beyond the hour at which they peaked, circa 1973.

The Dems seem to think that this strategy will cause Bush to shift his focus on the next nominee to a more "moderate" person. I doubt that it will have any effect at all. If there's one thing they should have learned about W by now is he doesn't pay that much attention to the polls, or to what the lefty activists and their lacky Dems want.

I believe the next nominee has already been chosen, and will be announced moments after the Senate confirms Roberts. The president has been holding off on making the announcement in order to avoid complicating the confirmation process for Roberts, but I'm sure the next nominee will be watching the Roberts vote from the Oval Office, and will step before the cameras shortly thereafter.

The reality is Roberts will be confirmed, and frankly, it doesn't matter whether he's confirmed by one vote or forty. The power of the office is neither enhanced nor diminished according to the victory margin in the Senate, and if the left thinks they can send some sort of message to Roberts with their vote, they're very badly mistaken.

I think the Dems who will vote "nay" on Roberts will have terribly misplayed their hand. Roberts is so clearly an outstanding candidate that the no votes will come off looking exactly like what they are - partisan political decisions which are being made at the request of the liberal groups who pull their strings. Consequently, this diminishes any respect these Senators might have gotten from a no vote against the next nominee. Only a handful of Dems, like Leahy and Feingold, have positioned themselves in such a way where their vote against the next person might have some meaning other than cheap partisan politics.

However, I'm quite content to allow the Dems to misplay their political hands. After all, they've gotten it wrong so consistently that at this point I'd expect nothing else.