Pajama Pundits

I don't hear the term S.W.A.G (Sophisticated Wild Ass Guess) much these days, there's probably a new slang word for it, and no one's ever accused me of keeping up with what's "new". Oh, and just in case a humor-impaired individual is reading this, the "sophisticated" part is sarcasm.

I am now about to make a S.W.A.G. (or two):

Based on nothing whatsoever, I'm classifying John C. Roberts, Jr. as a "sacrificial lamb" nominee, because I think the Democrats are going to crucify him... or at least try very, very hard to do so.

After his demise, a nominee with a more moderate view on Roe (the actual first choice) will be put forth and easily confirmed.

The alternative S.W.A.G. is that the Democrats will not too strongly oppose Roberts, saving the big protest for Rehnquist's presumably upcoming retirement announcement.(Have I sufficiently covered my bets?)

I'll be updating this post periodically with predictions, analysis, and commentary from people who actually know about stuff like this, as it becomes available:

Crescat Sententia: "I'm pleased to see that the President has nominated someone who is thought stone cold brilliant in John Roberts."

Confirm Them: "...the White House wanted to keep the pledge to conservatives, have someone who Bush knows, and support Executive powers. Roberts was the only one to fit the bill."

Bench Memos (Whelan): "[President Bush] has fulfilled his promise to nominate someone who has excellent credentials and who understands the role of the judiciary in our constitutional republic."

Bench Memos (Adler): "...he is close to the Platonic ideal of what a Supreme Court nominee should be."

Bench Memos (Lopez): Democrats have "the obstacle of having fairly recently put him through the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation deal fairly recently for his D.C. Circuit seat — May 2003."

The American Mind (via Instapundit, who hasn't yet posted his own thoughts): "Not since "freedom fries" were served in the House cafeteria will the fried food play such a large role on Capitol Hill."

Juan Non-Volokh explains why Roberts may not be anti-Roe.

Instapundit says Lieberman's inclusion of Roberts in a list of nominees that "could be considered with sparking a talk-athon" suggests a filibuster is unlikely.

UPDATE: President lays down the challenge by noting that the confirmations of the last two confirmations prove the process can be done in a timely manner. NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez noted that average was 58 days from nomination to confirmation.

Patrick Leahy notes that since the job is different, Roberts' confirmation to the D.C. Circuit isn't relevant to a Supreme Court confirmation.

Chuck Schumer: "It's a whole new ballgame."

Shakespeare's Sister: "...he doesn't look like my worst nightmare."

More:

Ambivablog: "Well, here goes. Who really believed Bush would do anything else?"

Ann Althouse in in CourtTV Chat right now - 8:44 pm CDT

Prof. Althouse thinks Roberts will take a position on "penumbras of rights of an evolving Constitution" that will protect him from attacks on abortion issue. And that his credentials are so strong, the only thing the Democrats have to disagree with is ideology. Hmm... I think that will be enough for them. I hope she's right and I'm wrong. (There's a real good chance of that. --ed.)

My question hasn't come up in the queue - Do you think that Roberts' "reliable conservatism" will push Kennedy to be more consistently "liberal"? (Sounds like I'm already discounting my S.W.A.G. that he won't be confirmed, doesn't it?)

I haven't participated in this kind of "chat" in years. It seems very antiquated and slow, but it's really not. It's going just as fast as anyone could be expected to type.

She notes the Democrats would look awfully follish filibustering this, they would seem like political hacks.

Hmmm... I don't think that will stop some of them.

In response to my question: "If you remove a moderate, it creates a vaccuum that pulls someone else into the middle. So, yes, I do think it will happen and it will be Kennedy.

More UPDATES: kos:

Tonight's announcement, and the rash of false leaks throughout the day, meant Rove got a reprieve from the steady stream of damaging stories about his involvement in the illegal outing of an undercover CIA agent.

So the administration had to act quick, and nominated Roberts to the high court.

The future of the Supreme Court is at stake, and these guys will even truncate that process for short-term political gain. Par for the course.

There are as many different views on the nomination as there are ways to make 'authentic' spaghetti sauce, and, rather naturally, everyone immediately sets out to find out... what's the catch?

Leaving David Souter out of this, at least a few people seem to think Roberts was picked in some sort of a hurry.

I don't believe that for a moment.
It's no secret that Rhenquist is ailing, and O'Connor has been talking at least a little about retirement since the end of the Clinton administration. (anyone remember the flap over 'oh, that's terrible'?)

No, for whatever reasons he was picked, Roberts was not a name pulled out of a hat on the double-quick, so George could move on to more important matters*. It wasn't, quite, inevitable that he (Bush) would get to put at least one person on the big bench, but it wasn't that far from fated.

To that end, profiles of quite a few people have been being sorted, winnowed, screened, combed and otherwise given the many-times-over, against exactly such a contingency, arguably since the inauguration in 2001. I won't speculate on how long the 'short list' was when O'Connor announced she'd had enough, but it would take a lot of effort to convince me there was much real wading to be done.

Everyone who comments on Roberts generally agrees that he's one of the brightest legal minds on the scene. Of the information I myself have seen, very few of the people who know him personally will comment on what political ideals shape his rulings, and of those who do, there seems to be agreement that, well,,, there aren't any.

While admitting that it can come back to haunt one, (I know we're leaving Souter out of this, but one shouldn't forget him entirely) the fact that his friends tend to decline comment on his politics is comforting, on several levels. I would hate to ever be under the sort of media microscope that is currently focusing on Roberts, but if it did happen, I should like to think that my own friends would be just as reluctant to tell the press things that are none of the press' business. To me, it's a point in Roberts' favor that his friends, are.

So 'we' are left with a guy who has been working with the SC, on one side of the bench or another, for 10 years, and has been a Circuit court justice for two more. He is bright, he's talented, he's quiet, he seems to keep his personal convictions out of his legal procedures, and he has experience.

They're going to have to pick on him for his hairdo.

*

While Senate Democrats scramble to decide just how much of a fuss they're going to make over vetting John Roberts; naturally, any and all fuss they create will be someone else's fault; The White House may invoke privilege regarding some of the work Roberts did for previous administrations.

That's business, as usual, but in a stunningly ironic case of absolutely towering hypocrisy, a certain Senator actually showed up for work that day.

No Democrats have said publicly they will fight the Roberts nomination. But Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., last week called for the White House to release all of Roberts' working papers from his time during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush years.

Umm,,, excuse me?