Pajama Pundits

... NOT

Senate Democrats are, as expected, quite, quite publically 'preparing' to drag out the Roberts confirmation hearings; also and equally expected, blaming others for the proposed delays. (I'm still trying to figure out why someone's tax returns are 'essential information' when considering elevating a sitting judge to a higher bench, but maybe that's just me.)

It's no secret that the Administration has invoked privilege regarding some of the work Roberts had done as an attorney. It comes as no surprise that doing so will be used as a tool to delay the proceedings, but every silver lining has a cloud attached; Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee says the Senate might just have to cut its August vacation short, if the delay goes on long enough.

Republicans are pushing to start Roberts' confirmation hearings Aug. 29, interrupting the Senate's monthlong summer vacation, unless Democrats promise to allow a confirmation vote before the end of September.

"Absent that kind of commitment, it seems to me that duty will call on us to go ahead with August 29th," said Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

The run-up to the hearings is, if nothing else, providing some absolutely hysterically funny tidbits. Consider the following:

But Democrats as well as Republicans have continued to give Roberts glowing reviews as he continued his tour of senators' offices. Schumer said Wednesday that Roberts assured him he would not act as an ideologue if he makes it to the Supreme Court.

"He told me flatly that he is not an ideologue and said that he shares my aversion to ideologues," Schumer said in a speech at the National Press Club. [emphasis added]

... Chuck Schumer doesn't like ideologues... how does he shave?

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.

Or: If you are one of six people trying to paint someone as a radical, what do you do when the other 5 give up?

On the heels of Senator Leahy calling Roberts such a radical that he's almost ready to think about maybe perhaps opposing his (Roberts') nomination, the ABA steps in with an opinion regarding Roberts' fitness for the post.

Problem: it doesn't help Leahy.

Roberts 'Well Qualified'

Supreme Court nominee John Roberts on Wednesday received a "well qualified" rating from the American Bar Association, clearing another hurdle in his path to the nation's highest court.

The rating was revealed as the Senate Judiciary Committee announced its plans for Roberts' Sept. 6 confirmation hearings, which include having the nominee questioned by the 18 senators on the panel for almost an hour each.

I don't know how much of the inquiry would put most souls to sleep, but the idea of a group of career politicians trying to trip up, uhh I mean interrogating, err, I mean 'questioning' someone who gives every indication of actually being just as smart as he appears does give one a chuckle. (if that didn't sound like a backhand slap at the general intellectual gifts of the average career politician, it was supposed to)

This marks the third time the ABA has seen fit to call Roberts well-qualified for a Federal judiciary post.

(sigh) Somehow, I doubt it will matter.

PS: This might should have been posted as an update, but I didn't.