Logic Has Nothing To Do With It

Here's another logical deconstruction of the Democrats' non-existent substantive case against the Supreme Court nomination of Judge John Roberts:

The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have requested all documents relating to the role that John Roberts played in 16 cases before the Supreme Court during his tenure as deputy solicitor general from 1989-93.

And, perhaps a bit surprisingly, they aren't gonna get them. But if they did, here is the jist of what they'd find:

*Roberts was not even listed on the solicitor general's brief in 3 of the 16, which indicates that he is unlikely to have played much of a role....

*Of the 13 remaining cases, the position for which Roberts argued was adopted by the Court in 9 of them. This means, among other things, that not only did Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas vote for Roberts' position, but also the following justices: Kennedy, White, Souter, and, of course, the sainted Justice O'Connor....

*That leaves only four cases in which Roberts did not win. In two of them, Justice O'Connor — the Democrats' gold standard for an acceptable Republican justice — agreed with Roberts. In one of those two, the government actually got some of what it asked for, and lost the rest by only 5-4. In the other, also a 5-4 decision, not only did Justice O'Connor agree with Roberts, but so did the other swing justice, Anthony Kennedy; furthermore, in that case the Court reversed itself five years later and adopted the Roberts position....

Of the remaining two....

*One of the cases presented the rather technical question whether a damages remedy is available for a claim under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Roberts lost here, to be sure, but he may have had only limited choice in the position he took....

*The [other case] was whether a school principal could invite a rabbi to give a nonsectarian invocation at a graduation ceremony. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that this was an unconstitutional establishment of religion; while neither O'Connor nor Kennedy agreed with Roberts, he did get the vote of Justice Byron White, a Democrat who had been appointed to the Court by John Kennedy.

Hard to argue convincingly that any of the above puts Judge Roberts "outside the mainstream," even if his professional qualifications weren't exemplary. Which is why we're still getting, and will continue to see, crap like this.

Also this from the Congressional Black Caucus. But you have to love how Gerard Bradley turns around their "Roberts is unqualified because he didn't grow up in an African village" canard:

A bigger problem, though, is members of Congress whose "only knowledge" of Northern Indiana seems to be gleaned from Norman Rockwell paintings and from Knute Rockne: All American....

None of the Black Caucus members actually live in northern Indiana, as I do. Maybe some have driven through on the highway. If so, they might have noticed that a short drive past LaLumiere — Roberts's high school — is Gary, Indiana, where, even in Roberts's youth, lots of black folks dwelled. And not just Michael Jackson, who has been on the Six O'Clock News quite a bit lately.

And still Roberts will be filibustered, whether over too much disclosure or too little, his ultimate confirmation hanging on the loose thread of Senate Republican resolve.

GB also adds a bigger picture take that doesn't lean toward the side of the optimistic:

[I]f John Roberts does sail through it will most likely be because the liberals conceded the battle in order to win the war. They will have successfully used Roberts to define conservatism down. They will have made the strategic choice to christen him by their votes as an "acceptable" or "mainstream" or "moderate" conservative, much like they now say O'Connor was. The thing is, they will have also used Roberts to marginalize those "extreme" conservatives — Bork, Scalia, Thomas, and the other nuts enamored of what they (the liberals) call "the Constitution in exile." [emphasis added]

An intriguing possibility. But still highly unlikely. I could see the Clintons calculating this strategically, but the Democrat Party of 2005 is incapable of not thinking with its glands and leading with its angry, petulant prejudices. They'll never deem John Roberts "the best we can do"; they'll never accept John Roberts at all. They absolutely insist that George Bush pick the judges John Kerry would have and won't stand for anything less. And they've got their elected officeholders by the financial shorthairs.

It may be an exercise in futility, but there's no such thing in the mind of a True Believer - no matter how many times he head-butts the brick wall.