>It is interesting how we are always lectured - as we were by the ABBers in
>2004- that we have to vote Democrat "because of the Supreme Court" and "Roe
>v. Wade hangs by a single vote," yet the very same Democrats for whom we are
>told to vote do not put any substantive fight. If all Democrats in the
>Senate united against Roberts the way they did against Bush's social
>security 'reform' and stood firm, they could stop the nomination through
>fillibuster and pry enough 'pro-choice' Republicans away to defeat the
>nomination outright. As it appears now, Roberts will likely be confirmed
>before the U.S. Supreme Court opens fall calendar.
There's a pretty big difference between nomination and confirmation. There's a tradition that nominees can't be opposed for political reasons, which is why opponents are so desperate to find a scandal. Since Roberts isn't a raving right-wing maniac, precedent takes over. The only thing that could stop him now is if the devout Catholic were found to have a thing for altar boys.
Doug