Morning-After Regrets: Liberals Lament Bush Choice for Court

I'm writing an in-depth article on my liberal take of various rulings, opinions, cases and utterances of Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts, Jr. Meanwhile, let's take a jog around the liberal blogosphere to see morning-after first impressions of President Bush's candidate.....

From Robert Gordon at TPMCafe, "Roberts is the least likely of the rumored short listed candidates to provoke outrage. He is a well-known Washington insider, an institutional player, a highly-placed member of the legal Establishment. He enjoys the kind of respect Kenneth Starr had before embarking on his anti-Clinton crusade, as a safe, sound man, not an ideological zealot like Edith Jones or wacko like Janice Rogers Brown. These qualities are going to make Roberts's confirmation easier. "

From Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, , founder of Daily Kos (which, by the way, broke its all-time traffic records yesterday), "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. Fair enough. I'm willing to hear the guy out. We're not going to get a Ginsburg, but I'd be happy with an O'Connor-style moderate conservative. For all we know (and for all the religious-right knows), Roberts might be that sort of guy. But he has to be honest and forthcoming, unlike his previous confirmation hearing."

From our own Andrew Somers, About. com Guide to Civil Liberties, "...Bush announced his nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr, a clearly neocon judge with strong anti-abortion views. There is no joy in civil liberties tonight. With the current make up of the Senate, it's likely that Roberts will end up as another nail in the coffin of our freedoms and rights.

And centrist Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice sums up the Roberts candidacy, "Here are some of our thoughts: CHANCES: Unless there is some fiery, smoking gun he'll probably eventually be confirmed.

DEMOCRATS may and will oppose him on issues but the bottom line is that Bush did indeed promise to appoint a conservative if he was elected. Roberts — so far — doesn't seem to be quite the kind of red-flag nominee that would trigger a massive firestorm. (But the week is still young). The Democratic leadership may conclude that they need to save an no-holds-barred (read that filibuster) opposition in case Bush appoints someone more to the right than Roberts.

HIS BACKGROUND: His every word, statement and attitude will be explored and if he's wise he'll answer.

BUSH'S FUTURE COURSE: Will this mean that GWB will feel he has paid a debt to social conservatives and appoint his friend Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for the next slot (perhaps Chief Justice)?

ABORTION seems on life support in legal terms."

I should finish my look at the rulings and stances of Judge Roberts later today. Meanwhile, come join the gang at US Liberals Forum message board hashing over the President's first Supreme Court nomination.