Bayh's disappointing stance on John Roberts

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh announced Friday he would vote against the nomination of John Roberts to be the next chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. We're disappointed.\nThe Democratic senator, jockeying for a presidential bid in 2008, said in a statement he would vote against Roberts not because he opposed the nominee, but because "we simply do not know enough about his views on critical issues to make a considered judgment. And that is the standard that must be met for a lifetime appointment to our nation's highest court."\nWe understand Bayh's concern. In many instances, we believe Roberts artfully dodged vital questions from the senators quizzing him. But what else was Roberts to do? Ruin his necessary impartiality as a judge by ranting on details of cases?\nLet there be no mistake: Our support for Roberts is not unified or solid. If Roberts lives as long as his predecessor, the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, he might very well be chief justice until people in their late teens and early 20s are in their late 40s and early 50s -- a sizable chunk of our lives. Not many chief justices are given such opportunities to influence and preside over the Court for so long.\nWe have strong concerns about women's rights, civil rights, privacy and separation of government powers -- all issues the Court will surely address in the future and issues we hope Roberts will examine closely. But after his televised confirmation hearings and the way he juggled the Senate Judiciary Committee, we find Roberts to be an intelligent and sensible jurist, seemingly respectful of precedent and nowhere near an ideologue who will rock the Court sharply to the right.\nIf you're a liberal and upset with Roberts, it's important to realize he's probably the best option you're going to get from President Bush. Noted liberal senators seem to understand this. Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy and Wisconsin Sens. Herb Kohl and Russell Feingold, all Democrats, voted within committee Thursday to confirm Roberts. And although all have expressed concerns, all see Roberts as a qualified choice for the bench.\nThe Washington partisan pressure cooker has made it more difficult to get much accomplished collectively. Today it seems it would be difficult even to confirm the Court's great past justices, like Oliver Wendell Holmes or Earl Warren. \nRoberts hasn't demonstrated a clear reason why he should not be the next chief justice of the Supreme Court. By succumbing to political interests, Bayh has demonstrated to us his real reason to vote against a qualified nominee: He'd like to win the 2008 Democratic presidential primary.