The Roberts Nomination--or how the Administration missed a slam dunk

John Roberts may still sit on the Supreme Court but it's no longer a sure thing. The Washington Post reports this morning that...

Thrown on the defensive by recent revelations about Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.'s legal work, White House aides are delaying the release of tens of thousands of documents from the Reagan administration to give themselves time to find any new surprises before they are turned into political ammunition by Democrats.

Before Roberts' July 19 selection by President Bush, there was no comprehensive effort to examine the voluminous paper trail from his previous tours as an important legal and political hand under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, administration officials said.

Three weeks later, these officials say they recognize that Roberts' record is going to be central to Senate confirmation hearings scheduled to begin Sept. 6, and lawyers and political aides are urgently reviewing more than 50,000 pages -- at the same time denying requests from Democrats for an immediate release.

Even conservative supporters of Roberts are critical of the administration.

While the White House plays catch-up in studying Roberts' past, it is facing complaints from some of its conservative supporters about what they feel has been a stumbling campaign for the nominee.

Sean Rushton, director of the conservative Committee for Justice, said in the days after the nomination "there was a drop-off of message and focus."

"Merely saying 'He's a lawyer's lawyer' isn't enough," Rushton said. "This is the moment to explain why so many of us feel so strongly about the judicial system in ways that can change hearts and minds of swing voters who could be added to the Republican column."

While Rushton said the White House has belatedly begun to "ramp up" its campaign, his complaint was echoed by several other conservative activists. They think Bush aides have reacted defensively about revelations highlighting Roberts' role as an advocate for conservative causes rather than making an unapologetic argument that he was on the right side of these issues.

But it's not just the Democrats that are uneasy about Roberts as Craig Crawford explains over at the Huffington Post.

It does not surprise me that a conservative group is now backing away from Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. But I am surprised that others have not. Recent history clearly shows that conservatives are the most threatened by stealth nominees.

In announcing his group's withdrawal of support, Public Advocate of the United States President Eugene Delgaudio said, "We can't take our limited resources and put it toward a candidate who is not a strict constructionist when we were told he is."

[....]

Social conservatives are the ones who historically get burned when Republican presidents offer up someone with little or no conservative record for liberals to attack. Ronald Reagan and George Bush nominated three justices who have sorely disappointed right-wingers: Sandra Day O'Conner, Anthony M. Kennedy and David H. Souter.

There's plenty yet to learn about Roberts, but so far it seems possible that he is more in line with those philosophically agnostic justices than he is with the conservative purists, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

I suspect that the recess appointment of Bolton has put the nail in the coffin of the "Nuclear Option" and any possibility of non-partisanship in the Senate. Roberts may still sit on the Supreme Court but not before a bloody battle.