[Supreme Court]

Dionne's Case for a "No"

In todays' column, EJ Dionne calls the Roberts hearing a "charade." He cites Roberts' evasions as a precursor to a "no" vote. But what really stops him is the continued transfer of power the legislative is ceding to the executive:

If senators simply vote "yes" on Roberts, they will be conceding to the executive branch huge power to control what information the public gets and doesn't get about nominees to life positions. The administration has stubbornly refused to release a share of Roberts's writings as deputy solicitor general. This is a dare to the Senate, and the administration is assuming it will wimp out. A "yes" on Roberts would be a craven abdication of power to the executive branch.

It's really odd that the Dems remain so docile in the face of a president who is so clearly weakened by his own craven incompetence. Since his re-election, the Bush presidency has been marked mainly by the national realization that he's a liar (WMD, Social Security, firing Rove), weak and incompetent (Katrina, Iraq), and an idealogue willing to sell Americans out for a cause or donor (Schiavo, tax cuts, "Brownie").

Dems, forever unwilling to play rough, seem incapable of even playing fair on their constituents' behalf. Dionne is right: the decisions they make on the Roberts nomination not only affect the Supreme Court's composition over the next generation, but the nomination process--which may, unbelievably--have even longer consequences. And this isn't even a partisan issue--the next president refusing to released documents may be a Democrat, which serves Americans no better.

In comments to an earlier post, eRobin made the rather cynical observation that the Dems "half-assed opposition" will inevitably lead to "cowardly buck-passing" about their inability to stop Roberts. It seemed a little harsh at the time, but the facts on the ground appear to be bearing out her prediction.