Advice and Consent

The President seems to have gotten what he wanted, Karl Rove off the front page. I'm not sure quite how long that will last, because Roberts doesn't seem to provide enough intrigue to soak up too much news time. There's some attempt to sell him as a stealth candidate, which I guess means we can all hope he's really on our side, that conservatives will believe he'll overturn Roe v. Wade and affirmative action, while progressives will expect him to be more reasonable and measured. His conservative bona fides seem pretty firm, though, and I harbor no illusions that he's not the conservative bogeyman we fear (although, by all accounts, a very pleasant, well mannered one). Democrats have a responsibility to ask whatever questions they deem appropriate, although I don't expect they'll get any answers. They should then vote against him. I'm not sure a filibuster will get them anywhere, because the seven Repubs from the "Gang of 14" will certainly not allow an "extreme circumstances" waiver. The nuclear option would come out again, and we'd get a chance to see who was bluffing and who wasn't last time around. Substituting for Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly's Political Animal, Lindsay Beyerstein (who usually blogs at Majikthise) makes some good points about Democrats examining the views of the nominee and maintaining party discipline. If the White House gets to take political realities into consideration in choosing a nominee, why shouldn't the Democrats get to do the same in advising and consenting?