Here’s a mind game: if the vote to confirm John Roberts were a secret ballot, would most Democrats vote for or against him? My guess is that Roberts would rack up numbers like Ruth Bader Ginsburg (96-3) and Stephen Breyer (87-9)—both appointed by President Clinton—if Democrats didn’t have to placate party activists so angry at President Bush they believe he should be opposed at every turn.
A person with character will always do what he or she feels is right, whether or not someone is watching. Here, many Democrats reveal themselves as being characters, rather than having character.
- Chicago Tribune:
If Obama and other Democrats want more liberal justices on the court, there is one way to get them: Convince voters to put a Democrat in the White House. This tortured opposition to Roberts isn't likely to improve their odds of doing that. They instead might have tried extending to John Roberts the fairness they profess to value.
Democrat Herb Kohl of Wisconsin had it right when he said he was voting for Roberts with "his hopes, not his fears." Too many Democrats are voting their fears - and ambitions.
UPDATE #2: The Anchoress included this post in her Round Up With Obscenity Warning. If I knew that obscenity was allowed, I would have taken a shot at the rest of Clift's article - which was basically to cover her ample @$$ after she correctly notes how beholden elected Democrats are to fringe groups.
UPDATE #3: James Taranto of Opinion Journal has a running tally of how the Democratic vote on Roberts stands here. As of this writing, there are 13 Yeas, 16 Nays and 16 Unannounced. Take a look at the two lists of decided senators and see if there is a pattern.