Despite the many calls to action that flood my inbox from Howard Dean and truthout.org, I’m ready to let this war settle. There’s a post at Eschaton about a Washington Post editorial imploring Democrats to confirm John Roberts. On my initial read I considered the argument as idiotic as Atrios does. Then I pulled a John Kerry (it’s OK to make fun of him for “flip-flopping” now that he’s already lost) and had a change of heart.

JOHN G. ROBERTS JR. should be confirmed as chief justice of the United States. He is overwhelmingly well-qualified, possesses an unusually keen legal mind and practices a collegiality of the type an effective chief justice must have. He shows every sign of commitment to restraint and impartiality. Nominees of comparable quality have, after rigorous hearings, been confirmed nearly unanimously. We hope Judge Roberts will similarly be approved by a large bipartisan vote.

…

Judge Roberts represents the best nominee liberals can reasonably expect from a conservative president who promised to appoint judges who shared his philosophy.

…

…[B]road opposition by Democrats to Judge Roberts would send the message that there is no conservative capable of winning their support. While every senator must vote his or her conscience on the nomination, the danger of such a message is considerable. In the short term, Mr. Bush could conclude there is nothing to be gained from considering the concerns of the opposition party in choosing his next nominee. In the longer term, Republicans might feel scant cause to back the next high-quality Democratic nominee, as they largely did with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

If presidents cannot predictably garner confirmation for nominees with unblemished careers in private practice and government service, they will gravitate instead to nominees of lower quality who might excite their bases. Mr. Bush deserves credit for making a nomination that, on the merits, warrants support from across the political spectrum. Having done their duty by asking Judge Roberts tough questions, Democrats should not respond by withholding that support.

In many ways, I find these to be very valid concerns, especially as I’m a coward who’s always afraid of taking negotiating too far. But that’s not the real reason. I’m hardly afraid of Bush “retaliating” against the Democrats with an ultra-conservative judicial incompetent (it seems he’d be willing to entertain that option regardless). And I certainly don’t think the Democrats “owe” Bush anything given his years of declining to consult with them for any matters of policy and nomination. It’s just that this Roberts fellow seems to be a damn fine lawyer.

Ben reminds us that not only are judges unpredictable, but that the likeliness of cronyism is small when it comes to lifetime appointments. He also tries to remind us that a lot of people probably aren’t (consciously) out to spread some evil agenda. They just believe what they believe. Roberts is obviously a conservative. Bush would be stupider than we make fun of him for if he nominated someone otherwise. But it’s not unreasonable to think that Roberts genuinely believes in the rule of law and while his interpretation of law may be different or stricter or looser than yours or mine, it’s still a well-educated interpretation. Plus, maybe the law (and that includes the Constitution) needs modification. I know, spoken like a true conservative. But sometimes they’re right, in a strange way. Maybe the policitians don’t know what we want and it’s important we let them know.

I’m not in the habit of reading court opinions, but I have encountered a number of “conservative” opinions where I can’t help but say, “Yeah, I can see that” with plenty of conviction (all that legislation that I fully support that’s justified by the interstate commerce clause? I gotta say, it’s very shaky ground). And sometimes, the people you think you’re completely opposed to can surprise you, as Antonin Scalia’s opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld certainly did (he argued, as I would, that suspending habeas corpus was most definitely not mandated by Congress and continued to give examples and reasoning, as I would, explaining that the importance of that writ can’t be underestimated).

It pains me to be agreeing with all these conservative bloggers who are using this editorial to support their cause, but I think this time it finally makes sense.

[edit]

I should note that while I’m willing to let John Roberts slide through, I am in no way suggesting that Democrats (or any Senator) shouldn’t vote “no” if they are truly unsatisfied with the nominee. What I worry about is fighting the nominee simply because he is a Bush nominee. I sense that many of those who oppose him don’t really know much about him (who does?) and are putting up this big fight because other people are telling them to. Don’t waste your time or money, I say. He’s almost assuredly getting confirmed. And filibustering John Roberts will cause more problems than it’ll solve. Making a statement about your legitimate dissatisfaction, however, is always in style.