Two Votes for Roberts in today's Washington Post

Senate Democrats who hope to somehow thwart the appointment or minimize the number of votes in favor of John Roberts as the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court suffered two setbacks today.

First, the moderately liberal Washington Post endorsed Roberts in an editorial today. This wasn't one of those wavering, begrudging Post editorials. The paper calls for a near-unanimous vote in Roberts's favor: "Nominees of comparable quality have, after rigorous hearings, been confirmed nearly unanimously. We hope Judge Roberts will similarly be approved by a large bipartisan vote."

And take this liberal obstructionists: "Judge Roberts represents the best nominee liberals can reasonably expect from a conservative president who promised to appoint judges who shared his philosophy." In addition, "broad opposition by Democrats to Judge Roberts would send the message that there is no conservative capable of winning their support." The Post has honed in on a point that deserves considerable attention.

The Democrats have focused considerable attention on determining Roberts's position on Roe v. Wade, and left the impression that if they believe he would vote to overturn Roe, then Roberts will not get their vote. How can the Democrats square this treatment with the Republican reaction to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was confirmed 96-3? Republicans certainly had no doubt that Ginsburg would be a reliable Roe vote, but the vast majority voted to confirm her due to her high qualifications and deference to President Clinton, given that he had just won an election (with 43 percent of the vote).

The other shoe was dropped by liberal stalwart David Broder in a column titled Roberts's Sterling Showing, right across the page from the Post editorial. He opens with both guns blazing, writing that Roberts "is so obviously-- ridiculously --well-equipped to lead government's third branch that it is hard to imagine how any Democrats can justify a vote against his confirmation." Broder challenges Democrats who have complained that Roberts failed to detail his stances on issue of importance to interest groups. Broder agrees with Roberts that "to answer those questions on pending issues would be, in effect, to enter into 'a bargaining process,' to swap commitments in return for votes."

These two editorials are representative of independent liberal thought. Although the Post may have its own agenda, the opinions expressed are free of interest group and Senatorial politics. The Post spelled out exactly how President Bush should react if Roberts receives fewer than 80 votes: "Mr. Bush could conclude there is nothing to be gained from considering the concerns of the opposition party in choosing his next nominee."