The Hill has an interesting item today about conflicted Dem senators who are weighing presidential aspirations and looking ahead to a confirmation vote for John Roberts. Maybe I’m missing something, but this doesn’t seem like a terribly tough call.
As new information emerges about Judge John Roberts’s conservative writing, Republicans are bracing for a more contentious confirmation process than previously anticipated. But the tougher grilling could also provide those Democrats mulling a run for the White House with a golden opportunity to build constituencies and raise their national profiles.
The Roberts vote, slated for late September, could have a high enough profile that Democratic primary voters will remember it in 2006 and 2007, particularly if Roberts is confirmed and the Supreme Court hands down a major ruling on a divisive issue such as abortion.
Clinton, Kerry, Bayh, Biden, Feingold, and others may ultimately come to see this vote as a litmus test for 2008 primary voters, not unlike the vote on the war resolution in the 2004 primaries. Indeed, I can a hear a Howard Dean-like candidate generating applause asking party activists, “What I want to know is why so many of my rivals for the nomination voted to put an anti-choice, anti-environment, anti-civil rights judge on the Supreme Court?”
It’s exactly why I’m confused that this has been characterized as a difficult choice. As a substantive matter, as Matt Yglesias recently explained, Dem senators should vote against Roberts’ nomination on merit alone. But even if we put substance aside and deal solely with crass political concerns, where’s the upside for a Dem senator who wants to be president voting for a conservative, Bush-nominated Supreme Court justice?
In 2003, Dem presidential candidates had to consider whether they’d look “weak on defense” when considering votes on the war in Iraq. But what, exactly, is the danger on Roberts’ confirmation vote? What will Republicans say? That Evan Bayh wouldn’t go for a nominee with a disturbingly conservative record? Remind me why that’s risky?
This is a no-brainer. Roberts will get confirmed, thanks to the GOP majority, but Dems who hope to win the nomination have no reason to go along. The more pertinent question, it seems to me, is the pressure some of these Dems may feel to filibuster Roberts’ nomination. That might score some serious points with liberal grassroots voters in primary states, but it would also be intensely controversial and generate plenty of GOP heat. But simply voting against Roberts on the Senate floor? Clinton, Kerry, Bayh, Biden, and Feingold would be crazy not to.