But by the same token, the reason to be skeptical, question and eventually oppose Roberts (and certainly the next nominee) is that he simply lacked the lifetime experiences necessary to understand the problems that ordinary people bring to the courts to decide. A lifetime spent at at top law schools, top law firms and top of the Justice Dept prepares only to have ideological and political understandings of issues -- not ones based on our fellow citizens as neighbors, with whom we share a community and whose struggles, conflicts and goals we share together.

In other words, if you had a dispute with your neighbor or your boss or your ex-spouse and you needed it resolved, would you want a guy to quote you case law, theory and sound bites?

Where in Roberts' privileged life has he ever experienced real conflicts that are the basis of our adverserial ocurt system?

I wondered last summer if the Dems would have the stomach to attack him for being, well a lot like many Senators in his background and outlook, and I'm saddened that no one did.

The issue is not about where a nominee stands on any one case, its about what kind of people make up and lead our government and Roberts is not the kind of person who understands the issues and lives of others.

Note to Senators: There is absolutely no point in voting strategically on Roberts. Vote yes and you're obviously trying "to pretend to be reasonable." If that's the thanks you get for a yes, how much worse can the fallout from a no vote get you? At least you can say you stood up for yourself.

Hell, why don't the Democrats just refuse to vote? That's only fair after the White House refused to release documents and Roberts refused to answer questions.

There was an UPROAR over the filibuster debacle yet certain persons in control of librul bullhorns called it a "victory" that LIEberman tied the hands of the Democratic Party... that is when Roberts fate was decided not today or yesteday.

Then there was an all out frontal attack "NOT" on Roberts or the GOP but * on NARAL* that engulfed the entire blogsphere by harboring on petty discrepancies of one NARAL endorsement witout regards to the decades of work they have done.

Combine that with a withering attacks in the blogosphere of anyone daring to make pro-choice "a litmus test"... or any single issue that Roberts is going to destroy...ie civil rights etc.

Then in the end a half hearted attempt to "lead" the rebellion on Roberts... on the matter of privacy.

So to blame the victim that has it's hands tied, bound and gagged that somehow we did not do enough...is really rich.

Not to mention the blogosphere COMPLETE LACK OF ATTENTION to civil rights and Roberts anti-affirmative action cases.

Pat Leahy, though a seemingly nice man, is a cautious creature of Washington. I believe he also voted yes on the partial birth abortion bill...

His most daring stand, however, was when he, as AG of Vermont, defended the practive of skinny dipping... He's also rumored to have pulled a gun at a poker game while in college... Not sure what that's about...

And there was that one time he leaked some stuff from the intelligence committee during the Reagan years, I think it was...

I also think he has been secretly behind some of the big defense and IBM contracts that come to Vermont, though his name is never associated with them. Does help the local economy to have the death merchants here, though!

He's OK, but never depend on him to follow the progressive line.

Personally, I'm shedding no tears over these developements.  Bush was duly elected.  The people knew what they were getting when they elected him.  We have to respect democracy above all else.  If you have  problem with it, go talk to the nadar voters.

Our so called leaders must be so afraid to make themselves Republican targets they won't stand up for anything.

The base scared our "leadership" by loving Dean last year; then we bought off on John Kerry,  who is a fine man and better than most of the DC denizens but still an establishment pol.  A Republican woudln't dare betray the base - it's time Dems learn to fear their base as well.

We need to make 'em hurt, cause when it's bad enough, they'll change.

OK, Roy Moore is a bit hyperbolic, but if Bush nominates Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen or Edith Jones -- all candidates who have sufficiently long judicial track records and previous public pronouncements to give undeniable grounds for opposition -- we're still not going to defeat them through a party-line vote, only through a filibuster. And we have the exact same moral authority to filibuster them regardless of whether we get 25 or 40 no votes on Roberts. The filibuster would either succeed or fail because of the whims of the members of the Gang of 14, not because of the specific number of votes that Roberts got in the full Senate.

Most likely, though, for the O'Connor seat, we'll get a replay of Roberts, i.e. some stealth candidate who's way down on the likely list of replacements who's unquestionably a partisan conservative but, for lack of a paper trail, it's unclear just how conservative. The sad thing is, it'll probably work again, because for the more cautious Democratic senators, I think the rationale is that assenting to a roll of the dice on a blank slate candidate (where it's unclear where on the O'Connor-Kennedy-Rehnquist-Scalia spectrum a candidate falls) is a better bet than picking a fight, accidentally detonating the nuclear option, and then later on getting someone like Brown stuffed down our throats on a party-line vote.

For some reason, it all reminds me of "Let's Make a Deal," where if you're faced with a prize you know you don't want (like, say, a really ugly living room set), a rational player will opt for the mystery box. Except here, you have the possibility of filibustering the mystery box... but successfully filibustering the mystery box will, in all likelihood, just get you another mystery box... and if you lose the filibuster fight, you're just going home with a case of Turtle Wax.

However, with the latest example of cowardice by the congressional Democrats in capitulating on the Roberts nomination, and not fighting it tooth and nail with a filibuster, I am over with the rest of the Democratic Party.

I will vote for the Greens, the Socialists, anyone who takes on this Fascist Republican puppet regime in Washington.  Good progressive Democrats like the above just mentioned will also get my vote.  

The sad thing is that the Democratic party on thw whole is just Republican/Corporate party #2.  It no longers proposes progressive policies, it is content to stay in muted opposition and play defense when a ruthless offense is needed.

Harry Reid said he would oppose the nomination, but other Democrats should "vote their conscience."  For a major party leader in the Senate, that is a signal to his caucus that no action will be taken against any member who votes for Roberts, an extreme, rightwing corporatist stalking horse if I ever saw one.

After 3 generations of strong Democrats in my family, starting with my immigrant Polish grandparents landing here on Ellis Island, I can only say to the Democratic Party- I didn't leave you, you left me to become a Republican/Corporate rubber stamp for this fascist regime.    

It's always Democrats who are on the receiving end of these attacks, so one cannot blame Senator Leahy for being cautious.

We don't just need to "decapitate" the republicans, but a number of the Dems as well.