Jeralyn is taking the classic rationalist approach to questions of fact: let both sides argue their case, sift and weigh the evidence, then decide. It's how lawyers, and most particularly judges, are trained to look at the world.
But it's also the classically liberal approach to politics, in which the struggle for power is treated like some kind of glorified courtroom debate, with strict rules of evidence, an impartial umpire (the judge) and 12 jurors, straight and true, to render a verdict.
Armando at Daily Kos takes issue with some of Billmon's comments, particularly this one:
If the Dems really wanted to stop Roberts, they'd bork him -- bork him like nobody has ever been borked before (see above.) It probably wouldn't work, but it's the only strategy I can think of that possibly could work.
Armando says that's not smart politics. He agrees with Sen. Harry Reid's statements and wants to wait until the confirmation hearings and then let Roberts prove to us why he should be confirmed, which he can do by answering honestly the tough questions about his views on topics like Roe v. Wade.
Still later, Billmon makes an analogy to the Godfather and says Dems need to be neither weak like Fredo nor implulsive and emotional like Sonny, but cold and calculating like Michael - and that being fair-minded and listening to all sides doesn't cut it because in the end, Dems need to do what's good for "the Family."
Taking another tack altogether are Chris at My DD and America Blog have already come out swinging against Roberts.
Last night most of us agreed that we weren't going to fall into the Republican trap of fighting about Roberts while Rove Gate slides off the map.
Yellow Dog makes that point again today, and reminds us that confirmation hearings won't get underway until after Labor Day because the Senate recesses during August.
Meantime, we will continue to focus like a laser on the fact that the closest person to the President of the United States intentionally disclosed the identity of a covert CIA operative and is under investigation by a grand jury in Washington.
I don't mind reporting on Roberts when there is something to report. As I said last night,
I'm more worried about Bush's second pick, the one he will make when Chief Justice Rehnquist retires, when his key aides may be out from under the gun of, or already indicted by, Fitzgerald's grand jury.
I do not want to fall into the Administration's trap of getting so distracted by this judicial nomination that I don't pay attention to other injustices of the Administration, like the war in Iraq, the detainees, military tribunals, the potential abolition of habeas corpus in death cases, and Rove Gate, to name a few.
I think liberals need to remember two things: First, the enemy is not in here, it is outside this room.
Second, we're going to get a conservative on the Supreme Court no matter what. That's because Bush won the election and the Republicans control the Senate. A Bush nominee would have to be filibustered to lose. Most of us never heard of John Roberts before yesterday, and while it's troubling that the right wing is filled with glee over the choice today, let's see if the liberal interest groups like PFAW and Alliance for Justice come up with anything of substance to use to oppose the guy. If not, let's strike where the iron is hottest, and that's on RoveGate.
President Bush's legacy will be in smithereens if his top brass are indicted. He'll be compared to Nixon. The entire Republican party will suffer. And that will provide us leverage for the 2006 Congressional elections and for 2008. What's the point of shouting about John Roberts now? If nothing of substance comes up about him, we'll be like the little boy who cried wolf, and no one will listen to us when someone like Janice Rogers Brown is Bush's next Supreme Court pick.
Which brings to mind one other point. What chance do we have with fighting Roberts when the Democratic gang of 7 sold us out on Priscilla Owen and Rogers Brown?
