By Staff
The good news is that 22 Democratic senators, including Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., voted to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as 17th chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
The bad news is that 22 Democratic senators voted against Roberts, including Michigan's other voice, Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.
That's more than the handful of Republicans who voted against Bill Clinton's two Supreme Court appointees, Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Washington polarization suggests an outcome that could have been worse.
Still, it's alarmingly partisan that 22 Democrats voted against a nominee of Roberts' caliber.
Too many Democrats are beholden to liberal interest groups. They embarrass themselves and their party by opposing Roberts.
These organizations wield disproportionate power in mobilizing activists and raising campaign funds, but they're out of touch with ordinary Americans.
It was almost humorous watching the Harry Reids and Charles Schumers struggling to justify their opposition while leaving ajar the possibility that he could still turn out to be a terrific justice.
Many of the Democratic senators voting against Roberts harbor presidential aspirations. What effect this balancing act has on their future credibility with moderate voters remains to be seen.
Three members of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to confirm Roberts.
Supporting overwhelmingly qualified members of the opposition party for the highest court in the land used to be the norm - not an act of courage.
Yet votes cast by ranking Democrat Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont and Wisconsin's Herb Kohl and Russell Feingold show backbone in today's political arena.
Their votes insure Roberts will not take the helm perceived as representing only one party and that at least some Democrats will have the moral authority to demand GOP support for qualified liberal nominees in the future.
Democratic opposition to Roberts displays a disturbing departure from longtime Senate practice.
On the current court, only Justice Clarence Thomas overcame substantial opposition. The other seven received but one no vote in committee. Six of them, in other words, earned unanimous panel endorsements.
By refusing to support an indisputably qualified conservative, Democrats sent a message that they believe there exists a strongly partisan component to sitting in judgment.
Anyone who believes in an independent judiciary must reject that belief.