Fallen Chief.

Breaking News: Segregationist, federalist, kingmaker, lousy historian, fashion maven, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court William Rehnquist has died. Can’t say I’m looking forward to the Dubya gang getting to pick a new Chief Justice. Nope, not at all. Update: Dahlia Lithwick weighs in, and the nomination calculus begins anew. Update 2: It’s Roberts for Chief.

Construction Time Again.

As big-time progressive donors get to institution-building, the Dems try to work out a coherent strategy on the Roberts confirmation hearings and the war in Iraq. Right now I think Russ Feingold’s strategy — taking the heat off Roberts to focus on matters in Baghdad — is probably the right one, although the party should also try to keep the public eye trained on the misdeeds of Mssrs DeLay, Rove, etc. There should be no wriggling off the hook this time for these well-placed GOP criminals.

Mr. Nice/Ninth guy?

“And that’s why John Roberts doesn’t alarm me much. The same conservatism that leads him to decry judicial overreaching in the privacy and civil rights contexts is part and parcel of a larger conservatism that distrusts reckless grandiosity…Roberts cares a lot about looking temperate, and that isn’t a bad thing in a judge.” As Senators Ted Kennedy and Patrick Leahy turn up the heat on the Roberts nod, Slate‘s Dahlia Lithwick argues that, at the very least, he seems temperamentally unsuited to be a judicial bomb-thrower. That’s good, ’cause even with today’s news of a missing civil rights folder and a possible conflict-of-interest in a terrorism case, there doesn’t yet seem to be a silver bullet that could derail this nomination. Update: Dahlia Lithwick reconsiders after pondering Roberts’ “Woman Problem.”

“Hidden in Plain Sight.”

“‘I’ve long assumed that once John Roberts was confirmed for the D.C. Circuit that just like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, he was headed to the Supreme Court,’ Aron says. ‘I also knew, based on his thin public record, he would be the hardest nominee to challenge.'” Salon‘s Michael Scherer examines the reasons behind the surprisingly smooth sailing for John Roberts thus far. Recently released documents indicate he’s clearly a dyed-in-the-wool Reagan conservative, but that, however discomfiting, isn’t in and of itself enough to thwart his confirmation. Of course, the White House is still holding on to his Bush Sr.-era records, and I for one am curious to see how Roberts here conducted himself under Ken Starr’s tutelage (and during Bush v. Gore, for that matter.)

Freak Show by Fiat.

Stymied by the Senate, Dubya looks to sneak Bolton into the UN with a recess appointment, perhaps as early as this Friday. “Senate Democratic leaders have removed a possible hurdle by signaling that they would not use a recess appointment of Bolton to hold up Bush’s nomination of John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court.Update: Next week?

Judge Roberts, Judging Rove.

Federalist Society or no, John Roberts now seems almost assured of winning confirmation as the Supreme Court’s newest justice (barring an eleventh hour revelation of impropriety, of course.) So, the Dems plan for the next best thing, which is to use the Roberts hearings as political theater with which to expose general right-wing looniness. Hmmm. Might work, I suppose. Hopefully, the Dems will keep their eye on the ball and make sure any gamesmanship on Roberts doesn’t suck the press away from the still-growing White House felony investigation, which now seems to include possible perjury and obstruction of justice charges for Rove, Libby, et al. Update: Wilson’s revenge? Salon suggests the operative law in the Rove case may be the Espionage Act of 1917, which isn’t what you’d call one of progressivism’s better moments.

Mister Roberts.

“What the social conservatives want is someone who will overturn Roe. v. Wade and change the court’s direction on privacy…But [Roberts] represents the Washington establishment. These Washington establishment people are not revolutionaries, and they’re not out to shake up constitutional law. They might make course corrections, but they’re not trying to sail the boat to a different port.” So, John Roberts. (I was traveling/working and missed out on yesterday’s Clements bubble.) Early word seems to be that he’s a tried-and-true conservative — A member of the Federalist Society, he was a Rehnquist clerk and a protege of Ken Starr — but not necessarily an ideologue or throwback. He seems a bit shaky on civil liberties, at least if you’re a Guantanamo inmate or a 12-year-old eating fries on the DC Metro. (And, of course, there’s the worrying inconsistency on Roe v. Wade.) But, my first impression, like many, is that Dubya could’ve picked a lot worse. Still, let’s get him before the Senate and see what comes out. Update: Hmmm…questionable on the environment, voting rights, and church-state separation too.

Rehnquist Remains.

Soon after returning from a two-day stint at the Virginia Hospital Center, Rehnquist announces he’s staying on the Court (which may well speed up Dubya’s announcement of O’Connor’s replacement.) Well, big of the Chief to finally tell us. What was the holdup, and why so coy a week ago?

Moderation in all things.

“‘I’m not sure where people get judgment,’ Professor Powe said in an interview on Wednesday. ‘I’m quite sure it doesn’t come from the law school context. But really good politicians have it. They know how far they can go, and when they have reached a good stopping point.'” As the Senate’s moderate “Gang of 14” looks to navigate the rocky shoals ahead, the NYT‘s Linda Greenhouse makes the case for a return to the longstanding tradition of non-judge justices.

Goring Alberto.

“As lawyer for the governor in the Texas Statehouse from 1994 to 1997, Gonzales was responsible for advising Bush about whether he should delay the death sentences of capital murderers…As my colleague Phillip Carter has written, Gonzales’ work on this life-or-death task ‘would have barely earned a passing grade in law school.'” Slate‘s Emily Bazelon argues that rabid right-wingers are correct on one account: Alberto Gonzales would make a lousy Supreme Court justice.