For the forseeable future, Judge Roberts would appear to be the kind of Supreme Court nominee we’re likely to get; relatively young, limited service on the appellate bench, hence, limited ammunition that can be used by the President’s political opponents to block a potential nominee.

In short, with nothing much to hang their hat on with regards to Roberts’ record, the Democrats will be forced to make his appearance before the Judiciary Committee a time for speechifying rather than serious questioning of the candidates qualifications.

This will no doubt anger their more rabid partisans at the Alliance for Justice, People for the American Way, and the other far left organizations who have taken over the grass roots of the Democratic party. But the fact is, unless some transgression committed by Judge Roberts can be found, there is very little chance the Reid-Boxer-Kennedy wing of the party can block him.

Looking at statements made by the few center-left Democratic Senators left, the President should be encouraged. Here’s Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE):

The best case scenario for Judge Roberts, the President and the country is for Judge Roberts to emerge from these proceedings with broad appeal. There’s always a danger in being defined as an activist judge with an agenda and a willingness to legislate from the bench. The confirmation process will shed light on Judge Roberts’ and what kind of Justice he might become.”

Senator Landrieu (D-LA):

“As I wrote the President last week, I hoped for a nominee who could unite the nation and muster the enthusiastic consensus support that Justice O’Connor and six other current Justices earned. As the Senate examines Judge Roberts’ credentials and hears his testimony, we will begin to learn whether this support is attainable.

And Senator Lieberman said last week that if Roberts were picked, he would “be in the ballpark” as far as acceptability.

These three Democrats, along with Mark Pryor (D-AR) and perhaps Ken Salazar (D-CO) could make this a fairly easy confirmation if they get on board early enough. Their support would more than offset any opposition from Repbublican moderates like Chaffee and Snowe.

Lincoln Chaffee may be a lost cause given that he’s in a tight re-election fight in liberal Rhode Island. But the Maine Senate duo of Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins would probably be inclined to support Roberts despite his being wobbly on Roe. As for others in the gaggle of 7 GOP Senators who voted to stop the nuclear option, Senators Graham, Warner, and McCain will almost certainly vote to confirm and Senator DeWine will want to start repairing the damage he did to his base in Ohio following his participation in the “gang of 14.”

What are the prospects for a filibuster? Captain Ed has an interesting scenario:

My prediction: we will see a Bolton-style stall tactic, where the Democrats demand more and more documentation from prior cases, and then filbuster when the White House finally balks. The Democrats started this tactic during Miguel Estrada’s confirmation hearings.

Interesting scenario but, I think unlikely. First of all, unless the Democrats are going to demand raw FBI reports on Roberts, just about everything else is about him is in the public domain. As far as his work at the Justice Department in the late ‘80’s and 90’s, I’m almost certain the White House has vetted that documentation very carefully and would probably make them part of the confirmation package they send to all Senators on the Judiciary Committee. In short, unless the White House rushed the nomination in order to drive the Rovian mess off the front pages and have been careless in their vetting of the nominee, I doubt whether the Democrats could stall the nomination by asking for “further documentation.”

Here’s some reaction from some of the saner members of the left:

Out Loud:

the gop controls all three branches of our government. it’s just not going to happen. this doesn’t look like the “extraordinary circumstances” that was part of the filibuster deal. in addition, we are basically sitting where the GOP was when clinton got his two picks. the GOP mustered token opposition, but ginsburg and breyer got through easily.

Shadow of the Hegemon:

According to common sense, he’s worth of a filibuster if anybody is.

According to Demosthenes, he’s a test of courage. If the Dems don’t act, they’re invertebrates.

MyDD:

You know what? If Republicans are forced to use the nuclear option to confirm Roberts, then so be it. As far as I am concerned, that is the only way he should be confirmed. People will pay attention to this one. We just have to make the case ot them why he was unacceptable.

Daily Kos (Kos Post):

So who is this guy Roberts? He has only two years of judicial experience, and his legal advocacy can be dismissed as doing the bidding of his bosses.

But he has to be honest and forthcoming, unlike his previous confirmation hearing. The Senate must take its time deliberating over the nomination. And this is something that all sides should want, not just ours. For all the right wing knows, this guy may be the next Souter who simply pretended to be virulently anti-privacy.

I think that if the Senate Republicans can peel off 3 or 4 Democratic Senators then the prospects of a filibuster are lessened considerably. There would be two reasons for this:

1. Reid may not want to appear to be too obstructionist.
2. Senate Democrats may want to save the filibuster to use against a successor to Rehnquist.

By getting 58 or 59 votes to confirm, Reid and the left may want to throw in the towel on Roberts and keep their powder dry for the day when Rhenquist finally leaves. And, as some believe, if Rehnquist is delaying his announcement until the fall, the confirmation battle would butt up against the 2006 Congressional elections. This would give the Democrats exactly what they want; a bruising confirmation fight where they would force the Republicans to “destroy the constitution” in order to confirm the President’s choice.

Then again…I may be completely wrong and Reid, Boxer, and the entire Democratic party may be under such pressure by the moonbats at Moveon that perhaps they’ll feel they have no choice but go to the mat over Roberts. Are they that stupid?

Time will tell.

UPDATE

Captain Ed has an excellent round-up of major newspaper editorials that show some respect for Bush’s political skills in choosing Roberts as well as a measured “wait and see” attitude that’s somehow refreshing. The Captain also correctly identifies a probable line of attack against the nominee:

On the other hand, the LAT finds the two issues I think will likely be the biggest hurdles of his confirmation, apart from Roe: his membership in the Federalist Society and his recent vote upholding military tribunals for terrorist detainees at Gitmo and elsewhere. Given the recent histrionics in the Senate involving Gitmo, I expect the latter will give Democrats not just an opportunity to beat up Roberts, but to use him as a proxy to grandstand against the Bush administration on the war.

The Powerline crew mentions possible avenues to attack Roberts but curiously leaves out the detainee decision which upheld the idea that the government could create special tribunals for the terrorists being held at Guantanamo. I agree with the Captain that along with his views on Roe, Roberts will receive the most flack for that decision.

Hugh Hewitt has a personal recollection of Roberts that makes him sound compelling:

Judge John Roberts may be the smartest lawyer I have known, and he combines that intellect with a graciousness and good humor that will make it hard for any except the most extreme ideolouges to oppose him. Here’s his bio, but it cannot fully convey the great intellectual force which Justice Roberts will bring to the SCOTUS.

Calling Roberts a “judicial superstar,” Mark Noonan is extremely pessimistic about the prospects for a relatively easy confirmation:

Some people are saying that there might not be that big a fight over this nominee – that with Roberts having been confirmed for his current position by unanimous consent, there is no way “extraordinary circumstances” can come into play; that while there may be some delaying tactics employed, what we should look forward to is a swift and painless confirmation of this nominee. That, unfortunately, is nonsense. Our Democrats, it must be remembered, are entirely enthralled to the far left these days – additionally, we have learned in the Delay and Rove affairs that nothing as trivial as facts and common decency will divert Democrats from their attack-dog tactics. We’re in for a very large and long fight on this nominee.

I don’t usually disagree with Mark but in this case, I think he’s wrong. If Reid can’t get his caucus to march in lockstep on this one – and it appears to me that would be a steep, uphill climb at this point – there’s no way he’s going to advocate a filibuster. Why waste your best ammunition on a lost cause? Better to wait and use it to block either a replacement for the Chief or, more likely, a nominee to fill Rehnquist’s seat. Remember, when Rehnquist goes, there will be two confirmation fights; one on Bush’s choice for a new Chief and one on a replacement for Rehnquist.

And a very interesting take on the battle shaping up between Schumer and Roberts via Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker:

Schumer, who loves TV cameras almost as much as he loves being the smartest guy in the room, is about to clash with a guy who outdid him. John G. Roberts and Chuck Schumer both did the Harvard College and Harvard Law School thing. But Roberts graduated from Harvard summa cum laude, and from Harvard Law School magna cum laude.

These are not just funny words. They mean something. A lot, in fact.

Read the whole thing. I think Lifson has Schumer down to a “T.”

UPDATE II

Jeff Goldstein asks the question of questions…the mother of all interrogatories…a plaintive cry from the blogging wilderness that all bloggers ask themselves but don’t have the cohones to actually put out there for all to see:

Question for the blogosphere: Who does a guy have to bang to get included in a roundup these days?

Thirteen updates!

That much work deserves recognition, even if it comes from me and my small, insignificant corner of the Shadow Media. Therefore, in recognition of yeoman’s work done in rounding up reaction from left, right, center, and other planets not of this solar system, I hereby link to Protein Wisdom and recommend that any and all attend to his site and read what Jeff hath wrought.

As expected, the liberal left has eschewed partisan politics and, as is their wont, taken the high road in their opposition to John Roberts to replace Sandra Day O’Connor as Supreme Court Justice.

Don’t believe me? Here’s a comment thread at Daily Kos that shows the kind of principled opposition we can expect from our patriotic friends on the left:

Did You Catch His Wife?

And an alcoholic and drug addict…That’s how Karl starts the smearing process, isn’t it???

What a brilliant and ethical approach to opposing the Supreme Court nominee; go after his children!

Not to be outdone by their fellow tin foil hat wearers, the Democratic Underground weighs in with their own special definition of “The Reality Based Community”:

With his bush close ties and background he’ll be an internal spy on the Supreme Court for bushco for years to come. Just the 2000 election advice/crap should make him suspect. Bush is surrounded by people that can blackmail him…and people he can blackmail.

Fortunately they are in recess for the next five weeks, so nothing is going to happen. We’ve got five weeks to pick this guy apart and find the ghosts in his closets. Bush is proving how desperate he is. Otherwise he would have waited until Congress is back in session so that there wouldn’t be time to dig up any dirt on this one.

Most of us would prefer to argue the merits of Judge Robert’s nomination based on his knowledge of the law, his judicial temperament, and perhaps opinions he has authored. For some reason – probably because they realize they can’t win that way – the left will take the low road here and dig up something that I’m sure Mr. Roberts, Mrs. Roberts, and his children would prefer not see the light of day.

And the sad thing is, they will have willing partners helping them do their dirty work; the mainstream media and its thirst for scandal and controversy.

UPDATE

D.J. Drummond has a much more complete, er profile of the sanity or lack thereof from our lefty friends. One sample jumped out at me:

A great indicator of the Leftist mind is presented by Volvo Liberal, who suggests “Draw Blood, Move on. We really don’t have a winning hand here, and in the big pig picture, we are making traction with the American people. So my suggestion is:

Yeah, that’s a real good idea, trashing what little image of restraint and rational consideration the Democrats have left. It’s worked out real well the last few elections, hasn’t it?

And Bill Ardolino links to a post from Conservative Yankee that says little Jack Roberts is in kindergarten. So what line of attack can the pond scum take to smear a 6 year old?

Tell us, Conservative Yankee-dog, does he put away his toys? Sass his parents? Does he have a paste-eating habit?

Just what exactly does Jack Roberts have to hide?!

Bill also thinks Roberts looks like the “auto-pilot” Otto of Airplane II fame. Surely, he must be joking?

No he’s not…and don’t call him Shirley!

Lots of righty bloggers are posting about this story regarding the potential seizure of Justice David Souter’s house under new eminent domain rules in which he concurred in the Kelo case.

The commercial project envisioned for Souter’s homesite – The “Lost Liberty Hotel” with “Just Desserts Cafe” – is a publicity stunt by Freestar Media owner and political nutcase D. (Logan Darrow) Clements who ran as an “Objectivist” for Governor of California in the 2003 California recall.

This guy is a loon:

I want to make government as small as possible so the economy can be as large as possible. For starters, I would reduce by 50 percent the government spending on education by making all the schools private, from K through Ph.D universities. I would make the government so that it is only dealing with proper functions to protect our rights, like state troopers, courts, prisons, police, plus minor administrative functions. Almost everything else would be eliminated.

In addition to his foray into politics, Clements also has a “Reality TV” program on “Freenation” TV called The Lexington League” that highlights David versus Goliath stories of citizens against government.

This “proposal” to seize Souter’s land stinks to high heaven of a publicity stunt put on by an egotistical political gadfly who must really be enjoying being linked by The Captain, Glenn Reynolds, Michelle Malkin, and several dozen others.

Forget the silliness, let’s stop and think about this for a moment, shall we? Do we really want to practice this kind of intimidation against judges, be they Justices of the Supreme Court or any lesser judge? If we can’t insulate judges from this kind of pressure, what faith will we have in the decisions handed down by judges who are looking over their shoulder to see if there’s any chance they will personally suffer for interpreting the law?

Fruitcakes like Clements abound in this country. The potential for mischief is great. Any hint of intimidation would color the decision of a judge and invalidate it in the eyes of the public. The very idea of it smacks of dictatorship, especially if the intimidation were to be carried out by the cronies of powerful men.

It disturbed me when Judge Greer’s life was threatened in the Schiavo case. Yes he had conflict of interests (Greer was on the board of the hospice where Mrs. Schiavo was placed) and yes there were other legal aspects of the case that troubled many who are much more familiar with the law than I am. But to threaten a man’s life? That kind of thing can never be countenanced in a democracy if our judiciary is to remain free. And this attempt at punitive action against Justice Souter that has so many on the right cheering is no different in its goal – to intimidate a judge to rule in their favor.

It may feel good to envision a “Just Desserts Cafe” on property owned by one of the architects of the execrable Kelo decision. But somehow, I don’t think Justice Souter feels very good about it.

It’s no secret that one of the banes of modern society for the left is private property. Why, the very concept of “private” property screams of inequality. Some people got it. Some don’t. Ergo, in order to level out society private property rights have got to go.

What’s that you say? The Constitution says what?

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The decision handed down by the Supreme Court yesterday in the Kelo case where a group of Connecticut homeowners lost their fight to keep the city of New London from bulldozing their houses in order to put up a a host of projects that would benefit already wealthy developers (and incidentally bring in much more in tax revenue for the city than the working class homeowners currently pay) is one more indication that the “Age of Enlightenment” that played such an important role in defining individual rights for American citizens may have finally become irrelevant to the continuing experiment that our republic represents.

The touchstone to our past has always been a reverence for the primacy of the individual over the state. In order to insure this – and to insure that the Constituion itself would be ratified – many of the Founding Fathers insisted that a “Bill of Rights” be appended to the original Constitution. We’re mostly familiar with the first ten amendment’s guarantees of our freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, the press, as well as our rights to bear arms, to be tried by a jury of our peers, and to remain silent so as not to incriminate ourselves. But equally important to all of these rights was that simple declaration of private property rights, an echo of the masterful annunciation of our right to “life, liberty, and property” found in the DECLARATION OF COLONIAL RIGHTS from the First Continental Congress in 1774 and generally considered one of the cornerstones of personal liberty in the United States.

No more. George Will sums up the catastrophe nicely:

Those on the receiving end of the life-shattering power that the court has validated will almost always be individuals of modest means. So this liberal decision—it augments government power to aggrandize itself by bulldozing individuals’ interests—favors muscular economic battalions at the expense of society’s little platoons, such as homeowners and the neighborhoods they comprise.

Imagine working for 10 or even 20 years to be able to afford a house only to have the government come along and take it for “the greater good” of the community? Of course, some argue that the erosion of private property rights has been going on for some time now:

There is a sense in which it is perfectly logical to say that the democratically elected branches of government are in the best position to decide what is a legitimate “public use,” and the courts shouldn’t second-guess those decisions. And in many contexts, we conservatives do argue that the courts should defer to legislatures and local governments. The problem here is that accepting that principle would read the relevant language out of the Fifth Amendment. If anything that a state legislature or city government calls a “public use” is, ipso facto, a public use, then the constitutional protection is gone.

My only other observation on the case is this: I defer to no one in my admiration for Glenn Reynolds, but I don’t understand why he seems to think that the issue is a wash as between liberals and conservatives. Just look at how the decision broke down: Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer—the Court’s liberals—voted to uphold the taking, while O’Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas dissented. I don’t see how the ideological lineup could be clearer; if you care about property rights, vote for conservatives.

Indeed, the “Newspaper of Record” - for the left anyway – celebrates the decision:

The Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday that the economically troubled city of New London, Conn., can use its power of eminent domain to spur development was a welcome vindication of cities’ ability to act in the public interest. It also is a setback to the “property rights” movement, which is trying to block government from imposing reasonable zoning and environmental regulations. Still, the dissenters provided a useful reminder that eminent domain must not be used for purely private gain.

Notice the use of quotes for the term property rights, as if the term had no meaning outside of a few mossbacks who actually take the Constitution at its word.

The Captain points out the sophistry of the Times argument:

The Times laughably argues that even though government acting as an unwanted arbiter between two private property owners is a serious concern, the fears that a government will choose the one with deeper pockets is “exaggerated”. Oh, yeah, sure. In fact, that’s exactly what happened with New London. No one argued that the houses being condemned were “blighted”; the neighborhood was working class but maintained well. Some of the people arguing their case had, in fact, recently put a lot of money into renovations, money that they now will never see. Most had lived in the neighborhood for decades, and one house had remained in the same family for over 100 years, with the current resident having lived there for 60 of them. New London decided that the waterfront view had more value as commercial property than for the people who actually owned it, and sold out for a few extra tax dollars.

In short, a man’s home is no longer his castle, it’s whatever the hell the government decides it is. If it’s in the way of some Village Trustee’s pet development project that benefits some of his wealthy friends and contributors, too bad. Again, Mr. Will:

Liberalism triumphed yesterday. Government became radically unlimited in seizing the very kinds of private property that should guarantee individuals a sphere of autonomy against government.

If you were to examine the property rights of our neighbors to the south in Central and South America, you’d see a disturbing parrallel in the way that property can be expropriated. Of course, in those benighted societies, you suffer this fate if your politics doesn’t jibe with the local family or of the government. In our own republic, you only get your property stolen from you if your politicians want to insure their re-election by satisfying some of their big contributors.

Private property as a bulwark against the power of government, as a means of independence, as a sacrosanct and inimitable part of our heritage, and as an American birthright took a huge hit yesterday. It remains to be seen whether the coming battle over the next Supreme Court Justice(s) will incorporate arguments for private property rights into the debate in order to bring into stark relief the differences between liberal and conservative jurists.

UPDATE

Michelle Malkin has an excellent media and Shadow Media roundup and says this:

The (right side of the) blogosphere’s response to yesterday’s SCOTUS ruling on Kelo v. New London has been stunning. And heartening. Eminent domain isn’t usually the first thing that comes to mind when one thinks “blogswarm.” But the fierce reaction to the decision shows that core economic liberty issues can still unite disparate factions of the right (South Park cons, neocons, Schiavo-cons, whatever-cons) who have been fretting about a conservative crack-up.

I’d also add that it appears from my reading that the traditional (sane) left is also decrying this decision. In addition to Michelle’s speculation about the decision uniting the current warring factions on the right, might this be the beginning of a beautiful friendship with some of our more traditional liberal friends?

Bill Ardolino also has a superb round-up and adds “A man’s home is… somebody else’s piggy-bank.”

By the end of the day, there will be 50 variations on a theme of that old saw.

Jeff Goldstein is full of disdain and satiricalness besides also having a gay old time linking here, there, and everywhere. I’m surprised he didn’t drag the armadillo out for this:

Lovely how the majority justices tried to cover this decidedly anti-Lockean decision with a rhetorical appeal to federalism (“local officials, not federal judges, know best…”). But just because the decision allows a local government (rather than the federal government, as it did with its cynical appeal to a malleable Commerce Clause) to assert what appears to me to be an extra-Constitutional claim on a private citizens’ property rights doesn’t make it any more kosher—and today’s decision, in its expansion of what can be shoehorned into the category of “public use,” gives carte blanche for municipalities to remake the geography in any way they see fit, so long as they can make the argument that they are doing so for the common weal (which in many cases is really just an excuse for gentrification—and legalizes the taking of private property from one owner and transferring it, by municipal will, to another government approved private property owner; it’s a plutocrat’s wet dream).

Flog that doggie!