Some words on the new likely Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Mr. John Roberts, and his confirmation:

What the fuck?

I mean, seriously. What the fuck?

I believe in voting against something that's wrong. Really, I do. Whether or not the vote is futile is irrelevant, you should vote with what you determine to be the best. That said, some Senate Democrats need to be beaten.

Especially the ones who are using this vote as a personal political ploy. Yes, I'm looking at you, John Kerry.

Hey, if I were given the opportunity to appoint a judge to fill Mr. Rehnquist's place, I would probably pick a Ruth Bader Ginsberg clone, because she's so awesome. She's against Mother's Day! Come on! What more do you really need?

But seriously, I wouldn't stick Roberts up there if given the choice. But Mr. Bush is the president. Really, it's his call. So now, I must wonder, why are the Democrats being so stupidly obstinate? Why are they unwilling to take what is most likely a less-conservative replacement for Mr. Rehnquist (who, though conservative, was a very good jurist) from a president who is willing to bend over backwards to satisfy his hardline conservative core? Why is relative liberalism a bad thing here? Why?

And besides that... what the hell is the matter with John Roberts? What are his flaws? I saw him on TV when the case of Roe v. Wade came up, and he made it very clear that he holds that to be established precedent (which he later went on to say is reinforced by more precedent). He also made clear that he is a strong believer in precedent, especially when it has existed for thirty years or so. So this huge issue that was not too likely to fall to the liberal side has fallen to the bloody liberal side. What more do you want? Do you want him to say he'll euthanize someone if they want it? Too bad, you pussies. Seeing as how you're the opposition in every sense of the word, you don't have much room to complain when you hear support for Roe. If anything, the Republicans should vote against him because he's not anti-Roe.

But if they did, it wouldn't be right. And that's because the role of the Senate is to confirm people who are qualified--not to deny people who don't fit in with their political views.

And I'm really, really pissed off. And it's not because of this matter that I'm speaking of now. It's because Blogger ate my post. Which is uncool. I could recover some of it. But the rest went away. And I don't have time to finish. Nor do I particularly care to.

So I'll wrapup like this: Bush is president. He's replacing O'Connor. Roberts could be like Kennedy, could be like Souter, probably will be like O'Connor. I see no problem. Democrats are being stupid. Knee-jerk opposition bad. Nominees do not traditionally reveal too much in confirmation hearings so Democrats are unjustified in not voting for Roberts. Another nominee is coming anyway. Knee-jerk opposition will make the Republicans mad. Mad Republicans might try to push through a crazy guy, and moderates in the Republican party might not side with Democrats. If Democrats aren't stupid, they might be able to get respect. But they can't. Because they are, and I quote myself, wielding the power of the opposition like an angsty-teenager that has too much muscular atrophy to properly swing it. Of course, no Senate Democrats read this. And if they did, dilatory would scare them away. Yadayadayada. Next week I talk about stupid people and Iraq and how I'm better than everyone.

End transmission. Hasta la byebye. Evil, evil blogger.