Bully for the WaPo

Once again today the Washington Post editorial page shows its centrist stripes, with a strong piece supporting Senators Leahy, Feingold and Kohl, the three Democrats who voted in favor of Judge Roberts' confirmation in the Senate Judiciary Committee. This support shouldn't be necessary, the editorial begins, because "[s]upporting overwhelmingly qualified members of the opposite party for the Supreme Court used to be the norm, not an act of courage. Yet, set against the general opposition from Democrats to the nomination, and truly intense pressure from interest groups, the votes cast by [Leahy, Feingold and Kohl] took guts."

The piece notes that aside from Justice Thomas' contentious confirmation (which was contentious with good reason, I will add), all of the seven current sitting justices combined received a mere 21 negative votes on the Senate floor - so the large-scale Democratic opposition to Roberts based on perceived political/judicial philosophy alone "represents a disturbing departure from longtime Senate practice." It adds "In refusing to support an indisputably qualified conservative, Democrats send a message that there is a strongly partisan component of the task of judging - something those who believe in independent, apolitical courts must reject."

It would be different, I'll admit, if the nominee was an ideological warrior in the spirit of Judge Bork. Then opposition would surely be warranted, and I'd be joining that opposition. No one has seriously suggested that Judge Roberts is in that vein. His nomination does not warrant large-scale opposition.

The Post continues this morning by sharply smacking down a comment by PFAW's arch-liberal leader Ralph Neas, who declared that Senator Leahy would be "complicit" in any rulings by a Chief Justice Roberts that Neas doesn't agree with. Says the Post "He is dead wrong. The decisions Judge Roberts will write are his own responsibility, not Mr. Leahy's; life tenure for federal judges, in fact, exists precisely so that judges will be insulated from politicians and so that politicians are not responsible for judging." Quite so.

Liberal interest groups, the editorial concludes, are driving normally-reasonable Democratic senators (I'll name names: Clinton, Bayh, Reid, Feinstein, among others) "off a cliff. The Judiciary Committee Democrats who refused to jump deserve credit for showing backbone."

Now, we can argue all day about motives, and reasons for voting one way or the other - political, personal, whatnot. But the Post is right. John Roberts' confirmation does not warrant this large-scale liberal opposition. The next nominee might. Democratic senators, even the liberals, should keep their powder dry.