It doesn't really matter to the Democrats if George Bush's superbly qualified Supreme Court nominee IS superbly qualified. It doesn't matter that the American Bar Association -- hardly a conservative advocacy group -- yesterday bestowed upon Roberts their a well-qualified rating, the highest they give, to sit on the Supreme Court. It doesn't matter that 60,000-plus documents have been dropped covering Roberts' career as a White House lawyer and judge, or that he's had personal Capitol Hill visits with virtually all his Democrat critics: According Senators Patrick Leahy, Ted "Mary Jo" Kennedy, Chuckie Schumer and the other radical leftists, Roberts is still the radical one:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Patrick Leahy says U.S. Supreme Court nominee John Roberts holds "radical" views and has been an "eager, aggressive advocate" for policies of the far right.

While stopping short of announcing his opposition to the appointment, the Vermont Democrat’s written statement yesterday was by far the most critical he has made since President George W. Bush nominated Roberts.

Firing his broadside one day after the release of 5,000 pages of Reagan-era records, Leahy said Roberts’ views were "among the most radical being offered by a cadre intent on reversing decades of policies on civil rights, voting rights, women’s rights, privacy and access to justice."

Yes, that terrible "cadre" of evil folks who can't find a right to privacy in the constitution that allows a mother to kill an inconvenient baby just for the hell of it. Oh and "access to justice"; that would be the right of serial child rapists and murderers to appeal their death sentences over and over again, giving people like Leahy the BS excuse that it's more expensive to put a killer to death than it is to house them for life as a reason to oppose the death penalty for those who deserve it.

But of course there's more to it than this: Leahy, Kennedy, Schumer and the like have their constituencies on the radical leftist fringe to cater to as well:

Ralph Neas, president of People For The American Way, declined to comment on his own organization’s plans yesterday but said a "significant number of progressive organizations will soon be coming out against the Roberts nomination."

Neas prodded Senate Democrats in public and private to outline the stakes involved in Roberts’ appointment.

In a private meeting with Senate Democratic aides, Neas angrily said that the public was being left with the impression that Roberts’ confirmation proceedings were a mere formality, several participants said.

And what do you suppose People for the Anti-American Way's plans will be except to be one of the "significant number" of "progressive organizations" way out on the radical leftist fringe to oppose Roberts' nomination? You know those groups like the National Abortion Rights Action League whose ad about Roberts and his "support" of abortion bombers was so misleading and distorted many reasonable broadcast outlets refused to run it and NARAL ended up pulling it after less than two days? Yes this is the same NARAL whose Washington state chapter a couple weeks back held a "Screw Abstinence" party which puts the lie to the idea that these groups only want abortion to be a "safe and legal but rare" reproductive choice. Tell me who's radical Senator Leahy: John Roberts, or the folks like People for the Anti-American Way and NARAL who have your gonads in a vice and are presently tightening it as much as they possibly can?

This is exactly what it boils down to: There is absolutely no call for any reasonable person to object to the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court. In fact, leftists typically hail the endorsement of the ABA. But Leahy, Kennedy, Schumer and the rest of their ideological blood brothers are beholden to adopt the position of the radical leftist fringe to whom they owe their senate seats. John Roberts is many things: A distinguished lawyer and jurist, a thoughtful judge who delivers sometimes-witty opinions, an extremely accomplished man for his age. One thing he most definitely isn't is a "radical".

But if you want to talk radical, lets talk radical. Let's talk Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former chief counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union and current United States Supreme Court Justice. What do I mean by radical? Well, Ginsburg, whose senate confirmation was a 96-3 cakewalk 12 years ago is radical by any reasonable person's definition of the word.

This feminist attorney has an open contempt for the Constitution and the U.S. Code and thinks that we would do good to emasculate the entire body of U.S. law. One wonders why senators 12 years ago weren't concerned with a 1977 report "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code" authored by Ginsburg which proposes sweeping, unconstitutional changes to laws of our land just because she and other like-minded leftists on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights think the U.S. Code needs to be completely gender-neutral. Among the recommendations in this report:

* The Boy Scouts need to be "integrated"

* Any references to the word "man" in the U.S. Code should be completely obliterated (i.e. midshipman should be changed to "midshipperson").

* In recognition of the increase in two-earner families and because the traditional family structure is inherently sexist, government-funded socialist day care should be established across the country.

* It might be possible to find a constitutional right to legalized prostitution and bigamy.

* Girls as young as 12 years old ought to be able to consent to sexual relations. Here's the exact wording on this issue taken straight from the aforementioned sex-bias report:

18 U.S.C. §2032 — Eliminate the phrase "carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years" and substitute a Federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense patterned after S. 1400 §1633: A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force or (B) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person's power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.

As if this is not bad enough, Ginsburg and the other Clinton appointee, Stephen Breyer, have both opined that we should look at the way other countries determine law for precedents in making decisions about U.S. law. These two obviously don't realize that the job of United States Supreme Court is to interpret the constitutionality of OUR laws -- how the laws of OUR land square against the intent or our founders and OUR Constitution. What they decide in Tasmania or Madagascar or even Great Britain should have absolutely no bearing on decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet these constitutional nitwits were easily confirmed -- Ginsburg, as mentioned 96-3 and Breyer 87-9. Why? Not because they were more qualified than Roberts to be a Supreme Court justice -- indeed if they don't even understand their job they are enormously LESS qualified than Roberts. Yet the perception among most of U.S. Senate 11 and 12 years ago were that they were qualified enough to sit on the court. Clinton nominated them, consulted senators and the senators consented to allowing these judicial bimbos to sit on the court. No demand for documents from the right, no "litmus test" no threats about how they should come into the senate chambers begging for forgiveness, no questions on specific issues, no vitriolic, lying screeds disguised as television ads bought and paid for by the Democrat’s leftist supporters. In fact, Ginsburg flatly refused to answer questions on matters that could come before the court and that was okay with everyone.

Everybody knew that Ginsburg was a radical feminist, former ACLU attorney and rabid abortion advocate. But they also knew that their job was to evaluate the fitness of Clinton's nominees to sit on the court and, although they may disagree with them ideologically, approve of the appointments. It was his prerogative to appoint whomever he wanted and to have them confirmed so long as they weren't completely incompetent (although, when looking at her record, it isn't hard to discern that Ginsburg IS incompetent). Twelve years later, in 2005, it is the sitting president’s prerogative to nominate and appoint who he wants to the Supreme Court so long as they are qualified for the position. John Roberts is arguably far more qualified than the two leftist political hacks Clinton appointed to the nation’s highest court. He deserves this nomination and an appointment to the court.

Sources: USA Today, National Review Online