What's not to like?

Gee golly, President W-imbecile nominated a right wing conservative to the Superme Court. Who'da thunk?

Justice John Roberts. Anti-abortion. Anti affirmative action. Anti environment. Pro corporate America. Pro return to the 18th century.

You expected any different?

Actually, I did. I was completely braced for a right wing evangelical idealogue nutcase. W-imbecile has a penchant for that kind of critter. Roberts is a lot of things, but the early voting's in, and at least he's not that. Not quite. (We hope).

Is he confirmable? Probably, although Democratic, liberal and generally normal-thinking folks are lining up against the right winger. All with good reason.

For instance, the ACLU calls his nomination troubling.

While serving as principal deputy solicitor general from 1989-1993, he authored briefs calling for Roe v. Wade to be overruled, supporting graduation prayer, and seeking to criminalize flag burning as a form of political protest.

"All these positions were rejected by the Supreme Court," said Steven Shapiro, the ACLU's National Legal Director. "But the Supreme Court remains closely divided on many of these questions."

Yeah, that sounds like the kind of guy we want on the nation's highest court.

The League of Conservation Voters called the nomination 'troubling.'

The National Organization for Women calls him an extremist.

"Once again, George Bush has chosen partisan politics and paybacks over uniting the country," said National Organization for Women (NOW) President Kim Gandy. "Roberts' background shows a political ideology that is inconsistent with the independence we have a right to expect from the Supreme Court. He does not have a commitment to the basic values of fairness and equality, and our hard-won rights will be in jeopardy if he is confirmed."

And the Democratic Party calls the nomination disappointing.

Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean today issued the following statement on the nomination:

"It is disappointing that when President Bush had the chance to bring the country together, he instead turned to a nominee who may have impressive legal credentials, but also has sharp partisan credentials that cannot be ignored.

Now, doesn't that brighten your Wednesday?

And so begins the confirmation fight.

MY opinions (based on nothing more than a few decades of politics watching) are:
-- Is he confirmable? Unfortunately, probably. He isn't so far right as to attract a MASSIVE negative campaign. As you can see from the above, a lot of folks are already distrustful. They'll need more ammunition. Let's all look closely.
-- Will the Democrats filibuster? I kind of doubt it. Unless his idealogue credentials begin to crystallize, it'll be hard to muster the troops.
-- Will the hearings be long, contentious and partisan? Damn betcha.
-- Will he be confirmed? Unfortunately, probably yes.
-- Will he be confirmed in time for the fall session? I sincerely doubt it.
-- Will he be the catalyst to overturn Roe v. Wade? Whointheheck knows? My non-supported in any way gut feeling is no. I have the feeling that although he's said he feels it's wrong, he also feels it's the law of the land. Sometimes conservatives can surprise you that way.
-- Will I be wrong in any or all of the above? You can absolutely bet on it.
-- Am I happy with the nomination? No.

And so it goes.