If the Dems don't filibuster Roberts

  —if they don't even try— there's a big problem.  It's a problem of strategy too.  They are miscalculating, badly.

Realize first that you don't get much more conservative, or more threatening, actually, to the protections of individual rights than with a nominee like John Roberts. (Oh sure, there's Janice Brown – but you know Bush/Rove will be smart enough to stay away from the guaranteed filibuster types, I'm pretty sure.)  And Roberts' papers have been withheld without consequence and without filibuster.  More than that, one file of his [Affirmative Action] has upped and walked away (WaPo) --after 2 lawyers (one from Miers' office, one from Gonzales' team) looked at them, removed them and supposedly returned them to the library.  (Identities of the lawyers are not being disclosed by the WH.)

So here's the problem if the Democratic senators let him thru without trying to mount a filibuster.  What if Bush nominates next a near-clone to Roberts? Someone who's almost as conservative as he, and moreso than Sandra Day.  What if it's someone like Miguel Estrada.  [flip]

Then the Dems will have no grounds left to oppose the next guy by filibuster.  They will have ceded all ground (see below).  And presto, the court [with 2 new appointees] will now be shifted firmly over to the right  ...

    because  (example, Estrada) --->
(1) Estrada's SG papers are withheld by Bush (---  Pass, as with Roberts.)

(2)  He seems to be, is suspected of being, anti-abortion  (---  Pass, as with Roberts.)

(3)  he's taken cases that limited the standing and rights of the disabled and minorites  (---   Ditto, a pattern here.)

(4)  His testimony is not very forthcoming  (--- You're following my logic now?)

So with someone like this, a Democratic filibuster would be near impossible, notwithstanding that the court "would shift right."  It would look like a double standard, and denying a top appointment to a Hispanic.

What a win for Bush.  The Dems hands will be tied with a near-clone.  Someone who's almost as bad as Roberts.

A non-filibuster strategy for the first nominee may have been OK for someone more moderate than Roberts.

This guy, however, has worked for more than 2 decades to roll back, shrink and circumscribe enforcement of protections for women, the disabled and minorities.  The problem is Bush's next nominee won't be worse, he/she will probably be the same or a smidge less conservative.  So how will the Dems mount an opposition.

I would recommend: the Democratic leadership should try for at least a first-round filibuster, an attempt, even if it's not fully 40 votes, or maybe they will get 40 for one round or more.  Then if Reid really doesn't want to force party discipline on the Baucus-Nelson types and others, then he lets them go for follow up rounds.  They don't need to announce this now, just think it through.

Heck, here's what I really think.  This guy should be stopped and filibustered. Period.  He's a throwback and likes to roll back legal protections.   But failing that, let's at least mount a party offense with the tool of a minority party.

Oh, the language at the top of the diary about to strike language about freedom from discrimination, that blurb of his comes from a memo Roberts wrote June 14, 1983.
        -------------

By the way,  OFF TOPIC, did anyone see at the end of August, about the first Recount indictments issued for the state of Ohio?  It's for Cuyahoga, the state's largest county. [Cleveland Plain Dealer]  The 2 election administrators are accused of violating statute and procedures that mandated a randomly (nondiscretionaryily) selected sample set of ballots.    Elections have consequences, as do bogus elections.  That's for another day.