Pajama Pundits

Senator Patrick Leahy (D Vermont) is almost convinced Roberts is a 'right' guy for the job. It seems, however, that some people are tough to really, really convince.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) says Supreme Court nominee John Roberts holds "radical" views and has been an "eager, aggressive advocate" for policies of the far right.

While stopping short of announcing his opposition to the appointment, the Vermont Democrat's written statement Tuesday was by far the most critical he has made since President Bush nominated Roberts.

Let me see if I have this straight: Roberts is a 'radical' and is an 'eager, aggressive advocate' for the 'far right',,, but that's not quite enough reason to oppose him?
Mind you, this is no endorsement of Leahy's opinion regarding Roberts, I'm just wondering exactly what it would take to completely convince the likes of the good Senator?

There is, of course, at least one other version of the story.

"The ease with which Sen. Leahy distorts Judge Roberts' record is troubling and may indicate that the Democrats are not yet done trying to make that argument, although it has already been discredited," [White House spokesman Steve] Schmidt said.

... as if that tactic comes as any surprise? (let me count the ways) It might be easier to find organizations who do not recycle already discredited arguments, than to note the ones who do. There's a reason for that: short public attention spans allow the tactic a dismayingly high success rate.

Here's where we get to the meat of the innuendo:

In material released Monday, Roberts emerged as an attorney serving in the Reagan White House who held views generally in line with those of other conservatives. He was sympathetic to prayer in public schools, dismissive of "comparable worth," referred to the "tragedy of abortion" and took a swipe at the Supreme Court for being too willing to hear multiple appeals from death row inmates.

I haven't read the 5000 released pages, and I doubt Leahy did, either, so I'll just note that it is possible, but given the distortions one has already seen with respect to Roberts' positionality, I'll take this with a shakerfull of salt until I get a lot more information.

The good Senator also weighs in on what seems to be the left's favourite 'for me, not thee' operational concept.

Leahy and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., both expressed concern about documents that were not released on Monday, asking for investigations into a few that were reported missing.

Nearly 500 were kept private in their entirety on grounds of national security or privacy, according to Allen Weinstein, head of the National Archives and Records Administration.

I see Leahy's point, though. If memory serves, the way things like this should unfold is to deny any knowledge of the whereabouts of the documents, and later, have someone leave a purified set on the kitchen table someplace. Naturally, there can't be any real security interests that outweigh trying to manufacture dirt on a Supreme Court nominee....

More on the story here.