[BodoidearoLew]

Roberts replaced Rehnquist, and hardly a murmur was heard from the leftists. Some said it was because a conservative was replacing a conservative, and so the so-called "balance on the court" wasn't changed.

Now Alito is about to replace O'Connor, and the leftists tried, but barely laid a glove on him. Some said it was because a conservative was replacing a moderate, and the balance on the court wasn't changed... much.

Others, of course, said it was because the job of USSC Justice is to uphold the Constitution, and Roberts and Alito's record of doing that look almost flawless.

But what will happen next time? Suppose either Souter or Ginsburg retire, while the same makeup of the Senate and the Presidency exist? Both are quite old, both have had health problems, and a retirement would not come as a surprise for either.

And, both are extremely liberal judicial activists, who have voted many times to permit Federal activities that are clearly prohibited by the Constitution. Examples are censoring political speech before elections, racial discrimination in college admissions, and forcibly taking property from its rightful owners and turning it over to other private parties. Plus many more. Justices like that are the lifeline of the modern liberal agena - without them, many parts of the leftists' agenda would be found unconstitutional, and the Nanny State they have been building for nearly a hundred years, would be dismantled.

Will liberals simply fuss and fume as they have during the Alito hearings, before giving up with only a few token votes-against?

The battle for the courts, is the most important domestic battle of our time, excepting only the pursuit of terrorists and their supporters in the U.S. It took the liberals several generations to get judges onto the courts who would support their agenda against the clear dictates of the Supreme Law of the Land. And now nearly a generation of seesaw appointments have gone by, during which the judicial philosophy of the Court has moved inexorably toward original-constructionism and respect for the overall framework of the Constitution.

The comparative non-events of the Roberts and Alito hearings have demonstrated that the leftists have been trapped by their own tactics. As Ruth Ginsburg so determinedly repeated that she could not comment on issues that might come before her if she were confirmed, so have later nominees learned well: If you stay away from specific issues, Senators have little choice but to vote based on your record and merits. Republican Senators have had no problem doing exactly that, even voting almost unanimously for the clearly-leftist Ginsburg. But extremist Democrats have voted against Roberts, and will probably vote in greater (but still futile) numbers against Alito. But with the rising tide of respect for basic justice and aversion for the constant petty squalling of the Democrat leaders, support for the extremist liberals in Congress has been fading steadily, and it appears teir diminishing numbers will have little hope of confirming any more of the judicial activists they so desperately need to maintain their illusion of legality.

With the appointment of one or two more justices like Roberts and Alito to replace hardline leftist activists such as Souter or Ginsburg, the extremist Democrats' agenda may be tottering on its last legs. Will its adherents quietly fade into the dustbin of history as so many other leftist regimes have? Or will they put up an even nastier fight that they did against justices like Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas... and THEN fade into the dustbin of history?