"We couldn't possibly get a better choice from Bush...

[Skink]

That's possibly the only reason that holds water for voting for Roberts. Heard this from Fiengold.

[Rowdyboy]

1. The sad reality is that he's probably correct.....

[karynnj]

10. Only if you ignore age

There is also a lot not known because he didn't say and documants were withheld. So, if he really is an arch conservative - he will be a problem for 30+ years.

[JDPriestly]

2. That's no excuse for voting for him.

The Republicans did not need any Democratic votes to appoint Roberts. Democrats who voted for him are just two-faced chickens, too afraid to rub conservative voters the wrong way by standing up for what they know is right. They have lost my respect.

[dsc]

3. Given what we now know, he is right

Clearly we can't be sure but what we know makes him better than Scalia or Thomas which is what he promised he would name.

[Rowdyboy]

11. Chief Justice Scalia, Chief Justice Thomas, Chief Justice Roberts....

I don't like Roberts, but I'd a helluva lot rather have him as Chief Justice than Scalia or Thomas.

[dsc]

13. same here at least so far

but of course we won't know until he starts issuing opinions.

[gratuitous]

4. Pardon me, but how would Feingold know?

It's not like he had a chance to review the entirety of Roberts' record and writings. And since the administration didn't provide everything on Roberts this time, they won't have to do it next time, either.

Way to stand on principle, Democrats.

[David Briggs]

5. Principled Democrats CAN confirm conservatives.

They vote for Roberts in good faith and hope for the best in the same way that Republicans voted to confirm Ginsburg. If we're lucky, Roberts actually has the integrity and respect for precedent claimed of him.

When conservative boast "if you want to choose judges, then win elections," what is my answer to be?

[Skink]

6. I actually think an attempt to over turn Roe Vs Wade is the ...

Only thing that will wake people up. It won't happen anyway though the thugs won't let it happen. Roberts sole mission is to protect Bush's disregard for the Genava accords.

[suigeneris]

9. Yes, overturning Roe as a disaster for repukes

is an intersting idea, I've heard mulled about. Could happen. What I am afraid will happen is that abortion won't be outlawed it will just lose federal protection and be sent back to the states. In that case the blues will have it available and a large fraction of the reds will not. Women with the scratch to travel will still get abortions. Poor women will do what they have always done. Die.

[gratuitous]

7. Well, this corrupt administration has pretty much used up its integrity

I don't trust anyone or any appointee of this corrupt president any further than I can toss the Washington Monument over my left shoulder. Conservatives lost a couple of elections during the 1990s, and still exercised a great deal of control over the choosing of judges. Several of Clinton's nominees never even got the courtesy of a committee hearing thanks to Orrin Hatch, Jesse Helms and their obstructionist tactics.

I don't know about you, but if I'm interviewing someone for a lifetime job, especially someone who could easily live for another 30 years or more, I want to look at the entirety of his record, and I expect some straight answers to my questions to him. Otherwise, no dice. The administration withheld substantial portions of Roberts' writings and record as a U.S. Attorney, and Roberts himself avoided giving substantive answers to a whole passel of questions. I'd prefer to count on a person's actual history rather than luck.

But the precedent has been set for the next nominee, and that is that Bush doesn't have to provide the Senate with the next nominee's full record, either. Democrats didn't insist on it for the Chief Justice nominee; what makes them think they'll get for a nominee for a lesser position?

[Rowdyboy]

12. The precedent that judges not comment on cases that might come before them

is not new. Roberts did not set the precedent. Its inappropriate for a potential justice to pre-judge a particular issue, because each case is different and should be approached individually. While I don't necessarily like this practice, its nothing new and in no way unprecedented...

Perhaps some of our Democratic senators might have spent more time working on questions he couldn't easily dodge, instead of eating up 10 minutes of their limited time to ask a simple question.

[suigeneris]

8. Sure

The reality is the president picks the nominee, by design. So unless you have him by the balls, and we don't, if you defeat someone like Roberts he will pick another conservative.

However, to make the matter worse, he might pick a far more extreme conservative (though it is hard to tell a whole lot about Roberts).
The reason is this. There was a little bit of consultation between the White House and the Democratic leadership over the nomination. Some ideas were exchanged; a few names mentioned. Bush didn't try to promote Scalia and he didn't send up Brown, thank god and Roberts doesn't *seem* to be a wild extremist (I love that fact he has no fixed judicial philosophy, for example.) So, if Roberts didn't get a substantial number of Democratic votes, which gives the pres a nice bi-partisan political win so they can point to broad support for Roberts, then next time the White House would be highly likely to say screw it, the Dems aren't gonna support us anyway so let's give 'em a real conservative that'll make them choke and shove him down their throats by brute force, which they can pretty much do.

What we need is the White House.