Spun Silly

But there has been a lack of enthusiasm among some bloggers on the right. "As someone whose professional life has almost entirely taken place 'inside the Beltway,' Roberts has been far removed from the day-to-day concerns of 'fly-over' America," wrote RedState.com . " . . . The nomination of Roberts serves to increase the disillusionment of these traditionalists with Bush's performance in his second term."

One strength of the blogosphere -- its real-time ability to vacuum up thousands of facts -- has been on display with the Roberts nomination. SwingStateProject.com posted excerpts of a 1997 court ruling in which Roberts, representing a pork producer in a clean water case, was accused of making a misleading argument, according to the Web site. The Liberal Dose site (which featured a doctored photo of Roberts making an obscene gesture) pointed to 2004 ruling joined by Judge Roberts that threw out an award of nearly $1 billion to 17 Americans who said they were abused while imprisoned in Iraq during the Gulf War.

Aravosis, who helped expose the X-rated past of conservative White House reporter Jeff Gannon, wasted little time. He wrote Tuesday night that Roberts "sounds like a partisan hack" and posted statements from Democratic Chairman Howard Dean, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, the Human Rights Campaign and People for the American Way.

But Aravosis sees no prospect of his blogging colleagues sticking to a set of talking points. "It's like herding cats," he says. "You can get 40 cats in a room, but you can't herd them."

All right. The Democrats aren't exactly breathing fire, as the Los Angeles Times reports:

"Senate Democrats, who had spent weeks preparing for a full-scale fight with President Bush over a nomination to the Supreme Court, instead found themselves today weighing whether or how to do battle over his choice of John G. Roberts Jr., who appears to be more conservative than they would like, but less ideological than they feared.

"Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, set the tone, taking pains to describe Roberts as an accomplished lawyer and 'very nice man,' but withholding judgment on whether he deserves to serve for the rest of his life as one of the country's nine most powerful judges. . . .

"That 'wait and see' response appeared to startle some Republicans, who had predicted that Democrats would launch an immediate campaign against the president's choice."

Nor was the New York Times signaling a knock-down, drag-out fight:

"Republicans and Democrats sparred over how much information Judge Roberts should provide during his confirmation hearings. The White House insisted the nominee could refuse to answer questions, while Democrats pressed for access to legal memorandums Judge Roberts wrote when he worked in the solicitor general's office. . . .

"Women's organizations, seeking to spotlight Judge Roberts's role as the lawyer for Operation Rescue, an anti-abortion group, staged a protest. But even as dozens of women marched and chanted and waved 'Keep Abortion Legal' placards in the sweltering heat, Kim Gandy, the president of the National Organization for Women, seemed to concede her group had an uphill fight."

It's all about the documents, says the Chicago Tribune :