I've gotta admit…

…that I share some of Jon Stahl's apparent ennui regarding John Roberts. I haven't been paying particularly close attention myself, but that's mainly a result of low expectations. I figure I'm going disagree with pretty much everything he says, to the degree that he can be pinned down to anything he says at all. In the end, I assume he's going to get confirmed, and as Rehnquist's replacement, he's not going to make all that much difference in the composition of the Court.

Like Jon, I'm already looking ahead to the next nomination as the one that will provide the potentially greater impact on the balance of the Court, the one that needs to be a no holds barred fight for the integrity of the judiciary and, by extension, the integrity of Constitutional government in the United States of America.

Jack Balkin, writing for TPMCafe, provides wise counsel, though, pointing out that the current hearings aren't only important for the current nomination, but a critical step in the approach to the next.

By putting Roberts through tough questioning, asking for additional information that the White House refuses to produce, and by voting against Roberts if Democratic Senators are not satisfied with his responses, Democratic Senators do two things, both quite important.

First, they articulate their own vision of the Constitution and place it before the American people. The point is not to oppose for opposition's sake, but for the sake of key constitutional principles that are at stake.

Second, and equally important, Senators signal that the President will not get a pass on his Supreme Court nominations and that the Senators will fight hard against candidates for the O'Connor slot who are not moderate or centrist.

In fact, Balkin's first point isn't just important to this nomination and the next, but to the next election. It's a real opportunity for Democrats to take advantage of a 'here we stand' moment while interested eyes are focused on their efforts. Of course, it won't mean much if ten or twenty or more of them end up going along to get along on the confirmation vote. That's why I'm an advocate (if not a particularly hopeful one) for a party line vote on the Roberts.

Democrats shouldn't support Roberts because Roberts won't represent Democratic positions on the Court. He wasn't nominated to do that, he can't be expected to do that, and unless his Republican sponsors and I turn out to be completely wrong about him, he won't do that.

Let's make what use we can of him now, since he'll likely be useless to us later.