John & Katrina

At Captain's Quarters Ed Morrissey nominates the next nominee:

"Janice Rogers Brown has just taken her place on the DC Circuit court, the same appellate bench from which Roberts served prior to his nomination. However, unlike Roberts, she served for several years on a state Supreme Court, that of the nation's most populous state, California. Her background gives her near-impeccable conservative status while presenting enough flexibility for libertarian leanings. Rather than hiding herself through judicial inscrutability, she has a long and public track record of her philosophies, and document demands will place no particular strain on the process.

"But apart from all of that, a Brown nomination would put the Democrats in a very difficult position -- one which they desperately tried to avoid by filibustering her for four years. As a black female vying for the first such appointment to the Supreme Court, she would create a huge headache for all of those who assailed Bush for nominating a white male from a 'privileged' background to replace Sandra Day O'Connor."

The Nation's David Corn also sees the appeal of Brown:

"How about Janice Rogers Brown, an African-American woman and sharecropper's daughter who is now a far-right California state judge (who seems to hate the federal government)? After all the recent talk about poor black people being shafted in New Orleans by the US government, Bush might enjoy standing in the Oval Office with Brown and talking about her personal story."

Blogs for Bush objects to the Democratic vow to take the Roberts nomination even more seriously:

"Anyone could have anticipated the Democrats would want 'increased scrutiny of Roberts' now that he's been nominated for Chief Justice . . . Like looking into the adoption records of Roberts' children? 'Greater scrutiny' is just a euphemism for mudslinging."

Former Clinton aide David Kusnet has some tactical advice for his party:

"Democrats would also do well to avoid elaborate explorations of Roberts's views on such legal theories as 'original intent' and 'strict construction,' which, while raising questions about conservative indifference to everyday people, can also prompt debates about liberal activism. Instead, they should explore to what extent Roberts would limit the federal government's authority to regulate business under the Constitution's Commerce Clause--an ultra-conservative doctrine that would restrict protections of workers and consumers. To put it bluntly, when Americans are thinking about issues like overtime pay, liberals win; when the issue is school prayer, liberals lose.

"Perhaps even more important, Roberts's memoranda as a rising young official in the Justice Department and the White House Counsel's office during the Reagan administration present him as a savvy but cynical political operative--someone with the intellectual firepower but not the passion for justice that Americans demand of the chief justice.

"Democratic Senators should read these memos aloud, pausing on phrases such as 'the so-called right to privacy,' 'the so-called gender gap' in women's pay, and 'purported' and 'perceived' discrimination against women. Taken in their totality, these memos are chilling because Roberts reveals more passion against grammatical errors than social ills. Next week, a Democratic senator should ask whether Americans want the Supreme Court led by a man who knows the proper usage of many words but not the meaning of justice."

The Note says the hurricane story will have a huge impact on the administration, beyond the blame game: