I found this to be one of the most thoughtful articles written about this nomination. The above sentence troubles me, however, because the President may mean no more by that statement than that he is confident she will adhere to the Constitution. I agree absolutely that that is what is needed. The courts have become completely politicized, and it is this that we should seek to undo rather than repoliticize them with our agenda.
Like many observers, I hesitated to write an essay on this for just the reason you pointed out. It may be that what the President meant to say, (in his frustration with nominees who, after confirmation, seem to forget their duties in favor of the delight of issuing decrees), was that this nominee could be counted on to uphold the Constitution.
If this is what he meant, and if he has carefully chosen the most qualified person, of all he examined, to fulfil this awesome lifetime responsibility, then our concerns are groundless.
I also agree that one of the most demoralizing things that can happen to a party is when the base begin to doubt their leader.
But we need also realize that we aren't Democrats. When Democrats see that their leaders are being exposed for the corrupt persons that they are, they reflexively circle the wagons and chant, "Our man, right or wrong!" The difference is that when Republicans sense error in their leaders... they push their fingers in the man's chest and say, "...if you've truly done this bad thing, you need to resign. You are not the reason we exist- you are only a man."
It weakens us that we have to regard and obey the law, while the Democrats simply sneer at it. But to do anything else would change who we are.
I am certainly not suggesting that a high level error has been shown to have been committed. But I am saying that the arguments advanced in putting forward this nominee for confirmation have left significant room for doubt in an otherwise uneasy party. Previously burned pundits are angry.
What is painful is that the nomination would have been so much easier among the party faithful if the President had merely said, "This is NOT an affirmative action nomination. This is NOT a case of my friend being rewarded with a plum. This woman, rather, has shown her unshakeable committment to upholding the Constitution, and her ability to do so if confirmed."
Would there have been anything further to say afterwards, other than to examine the record of her abilities? If that constitutes an attack upon George Bush, then we have a fan club going... rather than a political forum. I swore no oath to George Bush, and owe no fealty to his camp. As long as he represents the best interests of the Republic, I will support him along with the rest of the base. If he continues to show the courage and leadership he has in the past, his legacy will need no "Clinton apologist battalions".