Eh, they've already made it patently obvious what they're going to do.

Oh, yeah, the next one is gonna be so ugly.

The next one will be ugly IF Bush nominates someone in the Scalia instead of the O'Connor mold. If he nominates another Roberts that process won't be particularly uglier than this one.

But, if he nominates a Scalia or Thomas, Ooh Boy that will get ugly.

But, if he nominates a Scalia or Thomas, Ooh Boy that will get ugly.

Mainly to Democrats. To me...beautiful.

I have a feeling that Bush has already flushed out the Dems who will vote against any reasonably conservative candidate for the SCOTUS. If they'll oppose Robers for such meretricious (and transparently dumb) reasons, there's no likely candidate Bush could put forward who would both meet their criteria (i.e., a flaming liberal) and meet with the expectations of the conservatives who put W. into office.

W. loses nothing by putting forward a conservative judge. He knows that the sideshow folling the Robers nomination has destroyed the Democrats argument that they are objecting only on content and not character; Roberts was so obvious and outstanding a candidate that they had to invent things to vote against.

So if W. nominates a Luttig, the Dems will certainly try to block the nom, but they've shot their bolt: no one believes that they are acting in good faith any more. If they try to filibuster, the GOP will simply kill the filibuster and proceed with the confirmation. Even if every Democrat votes against the nom, the GOP has enough votes to push it through regardless.

The Dems really screwed themselves by putting up such a freakshow in the Roberts nomination. Leahy knew this and tried to get the other Dems to see it, but the party machinery is firmly in the hands of the Far Left and will drive the party willy-nilly off a cliff. And all in the service of hatred for a man who won't even run for president again in the next election.

Well said Monty. They are definitely in the grip of liberal special interest groups.

I don't think that the Dems, by and large, put up a "freakshow" or even particularly much resistance to the Roberts nomination. And more to the point, I don't think that the electorate sees the Roberts appointment as having been particularly uncivil or partisan. I do wish that the more Dems, such as Biden and Feinstein, had voted for the nomination and I am urging my Senators to vote for the nomination on the floor, but I don't think that the Dems have shot their ammunition, far from it.

Ace, I will take a slightly different tack here, and remind everyone that we now have on record 5 Democrats who think that even someone as qualified and reasonable as Judge Roberts is unsuitable for the bench. That's pretty naked partisanship.

What's worse, it's a miscalculation, especially if the next nominee is more of an outspoken conservative (unlikely, but one can dream). At least 5 Dems have missed the opportunity to block the NEXT nominee with the argument that "Hey, I'm not a partisan, I'm a patriot-- I voted for Roberts, but this guy/gal is waaay too extreme/radical for me."

They don't get to make that argument now, because they just made it clear that anyone to the right of Joe Lieberman can't possibly gain their support.

Hell, if Joe Lieberman were nominated, I'd be shocked if even *he* could gain their support.

Oh, one more thing: Feinstein voted for Roberts for Appellate Justice, and voted against him for Supreme Court. I'd just love to get her in a room and get her answer as to what she's seen (or not seen) since she voted for him that made her change her mind. What, did Roberts develop a crack habit only she can see?

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Dave's analysis is right on in my estimation.

vonK:

I think you're dreaming. Look at the reaons Feinstein and "Slow Joe" Biden gave for not voting for Roberts: he was "uncommunicative". Which is to say, he declined to respond to their fishing expeditions. Feinstein in particular was playing a game here: she knows full well that Roberts is a fine pick, but she also knows her Far Left voters back in North California will give her an earful if she votes "yes". This is pure partisan politics, and nothing but.

Oh, the next confirmation will be full of noise and fury; I don't doubt that. We'll hear lots of windy speeches and high-flown rhetoric. But apart from throwing tantrums, the Dems can't do much to oppose the next nominee if he or she gets past committee -- and the Dems will have a tough time keeping the next nom from passing committee if it's someone like Luttig or Janice Rogers Brown.

You can thank Biden, Durbin, and Kennedy for screwing up on this one. If they'd held their noses and voted "yes" on Roberts, they'd have stood a much better chance at blocking the next nominee. As it is, they've exposed themselves as partisan left-wing hacks will will oppose any reasonably conservative nominee.

Until now, the Democrats put up just as much resistance as it takes to mollify their moonbat interest groups. Since all these groups care about is money, they count on running a campaign just below the background noise, where the devoted hippies and moonbat contributers can hear it but the general public cannot.

But these votes are different. They advertise that you can actually vote against a superb candidate on politics alone. So maybe you don't see this groundswell of outrage against the Democrats because Roberts is a fait accompli, but if they try it next time, those votes are going to be wrapped around their neck like a flaming Firestone.

Typical Dem/moonbat collision with typical results.

The Democrats are playing politics with the supreme court. It is disturbing to see how beholden they have become to extremist special interest groups.

As Captain's Quarters said --

"(This) vote is proof that the Democrats seek to impose unpopular policy through judicial fiat rather than through legislation, and that they represent the true threat to the Constitutional checks and balances that keep power in the hands of the people."

Here's me hoping for a nomination of Judge Brown.

Not only is she a terrific judge, and reliably conservative, but I believe the barely suppressed racism in the Democratic senators will surface. The Democrats would be torn apart trying to block a black judge.

We might even get to see Teddy's head explode, since it doesn't look like he's too far from that as it is.

Yeah, the next one is going to be ugly. Bush can't nominate someone in the O'Connor mold, and even a nominee with views identical to Roberts is going to get a smear job on the scale of Bork and Thomas--at this point, the Dems and their enablers in the MSM are past masters of the smear campaign.

I'm sorry, but I don't see the groundswell of outrage that spongeworthy mentioned, though Lord knows the Dems would deserve it. Instead, the fact that 30 or 40 Democratic senators are mindlessly partisan seems to be accepted as business as usual. Five to ten of them will be held up in the press as profiles in courage because they voted for an eminently qualified candidate, and their switch on the next candidate will be described as a matter of principle. A cold-blooded partisan maneuver? How dare you, sir. Be ashamed for even suggesting the idea.

I expect this to be very ugly indeed.

"The Democrats would be torn apart trying to block a black judge. "

Steve, I'm not so sure about this. They can find African American proxies to do the dirty work like they did for Clarence Thomas.

If he nominates another Roberts that process won't be particularly uglier than this one.

Ugly? No. Stupid? Yes.

I yearn with all my heart for a real fillibuster so the public can see on national TV a bunch of moonbats reading phonebooks into the record while the business of the nation is put on hold.

The republicans would be smart to allow these dingbats to fillibuster until they die in their shoes on the floor of the senate.

Oh its going to be ugly, but I seriously wonder if John Q Public is going to care. Political junkies will be frothing on both sides but I don't think it will matter.
The LLMSM shot their ward to pin blame for Katrina on W, and got no where with the public.
The big problem is getting the Republicans to show a little spine, and act like the majority that they are. That'd go a long way into making things go easier. Bush should appoint someone in the Bork-Scalia-Thomas mold, and call their bluff.
Just so we can see the spectacle of liberal pants wetting.

Wouldn't it be great if once, just once, one of these appointees broke right?

Bush should appoint someone in the Bork-Scalia-Thomas mold, and call their bluff.

Why go with a substitute?

Renominate Bork himself. The left would all drop dead from brain anurisms.

The Democrats -- except for Nelson -- are entirely irrelevant to the process. It's all about Bush holding 50-51 Republicans, including enough of the squishies. The whole thing was, I suspect, settled in the back rooms the other day.

And I expect someone good.

Hey Tony, if W does that, do you think the libs will do a Scanners type explosion or a Raiders type face melt?
I'm debating which would be cooler.

I'm thinking a Team America type Michael Moore in a bomb vest "event".

Iblis, those are too unrealistic; my money's on a "Large Marge" type eye pop.

http://www.retrocrush.com/100monsters/99.html

Dave, sorry to get back to this so late, but you should under no circumstances get Feinstein in a room. If she is cornered and feels threatened she reverts to her true, hideous form. I do not want you to get your face chewed off by the Lovecraftian thing that hides in her body.

she reverts to her true, hideous form.

OMG, it can be worse than this?

Pinky, I doubt Frankenfeinstein could possibly be any worse than that time Barbara Boxer's head melted off her body and sprouted spider legs.

THAT was f'ed up.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

I'm not concerned with how the Democrats play the next nomination. They've tipped their hand. It will certainly be a very ugly three ring circus of lies and character assassination. I am most concerned that some Republicans will jump ship and not vote for the Constitutional option if the Democrats filibuster. I'm concerned that Chafee, Snow, Collins, Hagel, and perhaps Specter, or Crybaby Voinovich may even turn colors and vote against a Luttig or Brown nomination.