Saying that the Republicans applied a different standard to Ginsburg or Breyer than the Democrats are applying to Roberts is like saying that someone doesn’t believe in the right to free speech b/c/ they keep quiet.

That having been said, I think I would vote for Roberts, because of the particular strength of his credentials, the sober lawyerly manner he has cultivated over the last decade, and the list of folks waiting in the wings. In casting that vote, however, I would be employing a consequentialist analysis that I assume would frustrate the folks on this thread.

The vote is “outcome driven,” in the same way a justice who adheres to a strict belief in a “living constitution” and concepts such as “evolving standards of decency” will not be constrained to reach the “outcome” he or she desires in a particular case.

I suspect the senators who cast a “no” vote were receiving tremendous pressure from particular politically powerful groups — organizations who want to see particular “outcomes” in cases that might come before the Court, regardless of the constitutional merit of those “outcomes.”

I wouldn’t classify the “no” senators as “self-defeating obstructionists,” as the LA Times has done. Rather, in my view, they are “self-preserving pragmatists” who don’t want to offend particular special-interest groups and thereby risk, I dare say, re-election!

“IT WILL BE A DAMNING INDICTMENT of petty partisanship in Washington if an overwhelming majority of the Senate does not vote to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. to be the next chief justice of the United States. As last week’s confirmation hearings made clear, Roberts is an exceptionally qualified nominee, well within the mainstream of American legal thought, who deserves broad bipartisan support. If a majority of Democrats in the Senate vote against Roberts, they will reveal themselves as nothing more than self-defeating obstructionists.” (Editorial, Sept. 20, 2005)

Does the future of the Republic turn on it? Of course not. Is it an indicator of an unhealthy trend? Yes, IMHO.

In 1993 and 1994, republican senators weighed the credentials of the candidates, their ideology and integrity relative to other potential candidates, the electoral consequences of voting up and voting down, the institutional consequences, etc. Most of them decided to vote “yes” but a minority decided to vote “no” (including nine on Justice Breyer).

In 2005, the Democrats are weighing the same factors. Once again, most of them will decide to vote “yes” but a minority will decide to vote “no.” How many? Ten? Fifteen? Twenty?

So, the future of the Republic turns on whether this complicated calculus produces nine or twenty no votes? Sounds like a sore winner to me.

The difference is that in 1993, the Republicans understood that the liberal candidate won the presidental election, and he was going to nominate liberal justices. As long as they were qualified and not too far out in left field, they would be, and were, confirmed with the approval of most of the Republican senators, as well as all the Democrats. The reciprocal understanding is sorely lacking on the other side of the aisle today.

If so, what would be the justification for no votes in the full Senate.
Why would Bush be constrained on nominating a conservative to the O’Connor seat?