Democrats Defiant (at least a little bit)

I've been complaining from time to time that the Democrats are offering little or no opposition to an extremely weakened President, but when it comes to John Roberts, it looks like they're going to show a little bit of spine. Harry Reid came out yesterday and announced his intention to vote against the nomination. Patrick Leahy, the top-ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said he'd vote for Roberts, so Reid won't be able to hold his party together, but as much opposition as he can muster is important.

Even if Reid could hold all Democrats to a negative vote, Roberts would still win confirmation, so it's an entirely symbolic vote, but I think it's an important symbol. A number of people are using the "from what we know" defense in supporting Roberts--from what we know, he seems quite reasonable. Of course, that's because the Bushies have conveniently "misplaced" or otherwise made unavailable any documentation that might prove otherwise. To fall back on the old conservative argument that an innocent man has nothing to hide, we have to assume that the documents the administration is holding close to its chest reveal that Roberts is not the man he's presenting himself to be. At this point, it's easy enough for the Bush people to prove that assumption wrong, and the fact that they refuse to speaks volumes.

Voting against Roberts is the right thing for Dems to do. Even if they can't defeat him, they can demonstrate that they're not willing to go along with the program regardless. Maybe it'll be the start of something.