"The better part of valor" versus "The loyal opposition"

In a move that should thrill Democrats, Bush had changed the Roberts nomination from replacing Justice O'Connor to replacing Chief Justice Renquist. Justice O'Connor's vacancy is conditional upon confirmation of her successor while Chief Justice Renquist's vacancy is unconditional because he has succumbed to cancer. The practical implication is that O'Connor stays on the bench.

Objectively, this is a fairly pragmatic decision. The vetting process for a Supreme Court justice is long and ardous and there is no realistic way to have a new nominee by the start of the Court's term, unless Bush were to nominate an unknown quanity (which would be a bad for everyong across the political spectrum and dumb and anyway won't happen). It is bad to have no Chief Justice (arguably it is no worse than having any odd number of vacancies on the court, but whatever). And Roberts is a qualified nominee: former editor of the Harvard law review, a brilliant legal career, a distinguished record of public service. Moreover, Roberts is a consensus nominee: Bush took input from moderates and nominated someone who they liked.

Aesthetically, I find the Roberts nomination extremely pleasing. Roberts was a clerk for Renquist. I also like Roberts' style. I mean his legal writing. I may disagree with many of his views, but the clear and forceful way in which he advocates means that his reasoning is either clear and persuasive or clear and you understand on which of his premises you don't buy in.

For Democrats, a Roberts, Stephens, Bryer, O'Connor, Souter, Thomas, Scalia, Ginsburg, Kennedy is about as moderate and incremental a court that Bush is likely to nominate. Which brings me to my point:

There are times when it is important to be opposition on principal and there are times to shut up. This is one of the later. Stalling a Roberts is only succeeds in hurting the country and the government process. Moreover, its shows a lack of good sense as there are much more important things that the Democrats should and could influence. Here's a short list:

1) Increase New Orleans relief efforts
2) Address the long-term and structural issues that lead to the humanitarian disaster in New Orleans
3) Push for the administration to articulate an exit plan for Iraq
4) End tax subsidies for the richest 20%
5) Abolish the death penalty
6) Fund science education. By the way, computer science is science and America is falling behind. While we are at it: Better student:teacher = better education. Oh, and public libraries = a public good.
7) Disease research and access to disease-fighting medicines and vacinations = A great form of international aid.

Depressingly, except for #3 and #5, we are more likely to see better results on my agenda from Bill Gates than from the current Democratic party. And so my conclusion:

Bill Gates should be the 2008 Democratic Nominee.