Democrats and Roberts

The Daily Show was as brilliant as ever in encapsulating the Democratic response to Judge Roberts nomination:

Ed Helms: Liberals are outraged by Bush's choice. They have been for weeks.

Jon Stewart: Ed they just found out about Roberts last night.

Ed Helms: That's not the point. The left wishes the president picked someone they wanted, not someone he wanted. I mean who gave him the authority; its abuse of power.

Jon Stewart: I think it's in the constitution.

Ed Helms: What the Democrats are saying is they wish they had won the last election.

While the Democrats are stressing the importance to wait and see, and drumming up the importance of an already dismissed memo. They seem to be doing everything in a baseless yet passionate manner, like Bush just nominated a terrible person, but we don't know why he is terrible yet. John Kerry sent out this email to those on his email list:

This much is clear already. Judge Roberts is no Sandra Day O'Connor.

Last night we learned that President Bush wants to replace a woman who voted to uphold Roe v. Wade with a man who argued against Roe v. Wade, and that sends a clear signal that this White House remains bent on opening old wounds and dividing America.

There are big questions that must be answered involving Judge Roberts' judicial philosophy as demonstrated over his short time on the appellate court. The Senate must learn whether he has a clear, consistent commitment to upholding Constitutional standards like civil rights, the right to privacy, and Roe v. Wade. These issues are in serious question if you take even a cursory glance at his record.

We need to ask the tough questions to determine whether John Roberts is the nominee who will give America a Court that is fair, independent, ethical and committed to Constitutional freedoms rather than an ideological agenda, and I promise you I will do everything in my power to assure that no question is sidestepped.

Throughout every step of the confirmation process, I will keep you informed about the questions that need to be asked, the answers we need to demand, and the principles we need to defend. It's impossible to overstate the importance of this moment.

As the U.S. Senate discharges one of its most important responsibilities, I will be active and vigilant. I hope you will do the same, beginning right now. Start by sharing a few words about your personal feelings on the importance of this Supreme Court nomination.

You can submit your comments or questions here:

http://www.johnkerry.com/action/share/

Thank you,

John Kerry

P.S. In the days ahead, we'll be featuring on our johnkerry.com website a cross-section of the comments submitted and contacting you with important information and action requests as events demand. Sign up here if you want to get the latest information. Recruit your friends and neighbors, too.

Chuck Schumer came out with a similar statement. Kerry's message just reeks of bitterness. He seems to be itching for a fight, on a front where Democrats are going to gain no traction, and on issues that the country does not want fight over anymore. But so much money has been collected and so many liberals are angry in general, that a fight may be created. But my bet is that the Democrats will end up just looking silly (especially because Roberts will probably end up talking the pants off of Democrats and Republicans alike in his confirmation hearing, i.e. he is charismatic).

And this all sums up the brilliance of Bush selecting Roberts. Although Bush has been brazen and cavalier when it comes to almost every single issue during his presidency (think Iraq, Social Security, Tax Cuts, Filibuster and the Federal Court of Appeals nominees, Patriot Act, etc), he was not in selecting Roberts. Bush could have selected Michael Luttig (aka Scalia Jr.), stuck to his tendency to divide and conquer, and further radicalized Democrats and centrists (but pleased only Evangelicals and Karl Rove). But he didn't. He selected a really bright and likable guy. He selected a guy that adequately, but not outrageously, represents the ideals of the voters who elected him (and hey, Ann Coulter thinking he is not conservative enough seems like an endorsement to the rest of the country). Democrats need to work on getting that majority, not entrenching their already entrenched base (David Brooks touches on this).

The Democrat that wants to be the next President of the United States should get up, quote John Kennedy, then describe how although he may not agree with all of Roberts stances, the country does not need a bitter confirmation process. Then this fantasy Democrat would describe things we do need, like an honest discussion of Social Security's solvency, the real financial implications of Bush's prescription drug care plan, a fair appraisal of Iraq, a renewed focus on Afghanistan, and the Muslim world as a whole. I can only dream though...Fareed Zakaria for President.

-Mr. Alec

PS Isn't this Supreme Court stuff is fun?!