Ginsburg And Roberts Not That Different?

If you're not reading the Hedgehog Blog (and you certainly should, especially given its hallowed placement on Hugh's much thinned new blogroll), you may have missed Lowell's recent post on the lack of difference between the Ginzburg and Roberts nominations.

Lowell's point is this: Ginsburg replaced a centrist-to-liberal (Black) just as Roberts is replacing a centrist-to-conservative (O'Connor), so she nudged it left and he will nudge it right.

Right or wrong, the GOP didn't fight Ginsburg, voting 96-3 for her confirmation, knowing full well she was a brazen Lib. Lowell sums it up:

The real difference? Instead of accepting the President's right, in our system, to appoint justices whose philosophy does move the Court either rightward or leftward (as Clinton did with Ginsburg and Bush seeks to do with Roberts), the Democrats are using every possible strategy to stop the Roberts nomination.

It is entirely appropriate for President Bush to nominate someone whose judicial philosophy and views will change the direction of the Court; that's why we have elections, and that's how the Founders set up the system. The Democrats' reaction is all the more disgusting when compared with the Republican approach in nearly identical circumstances.