UPDATE: SCOTUS-- THE DAY AFTER

Today Slate asked liberals and moderates if they're sorry they didn't fight Roberts' nomination when Bush put him forward. And today some of my pals in Montana were berating the execrable Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate from their state, Mike Lange. There aren't enough bad things anyone could ever say about Mike Lange. He's human garbage on two legs and anyone who votes for him should have a thorough psychological examination. But who is he running against? Max Baucus. The only good thing you can say about Baucus is that he's a little better than Lange-- although on Alito and Roberts, and on countless other crucial issues, there is no difference whatsoever.

In this morning's Washington Post E.J. Dionne wrote a "Just say no" column, Not One More Roberts or Alito.

The Senate's Democratic majority-- joined by all Republicans who purport to be moderate-- must tell President Bush that this will be their answer to any controversial nominee to the Supreme Court or the appellate courts.

Yes, they must. But E.J. is no fool. He knows what hacks reside in the Senate Democratic caucus. And what Republican moderates? Did even one Republican "moderate" stand up against Alito or Roberts? The answer is "no." The fake moderates who try to claim they are "independent," rubber stamp trash like Sununu, Coleman, Collins, Smith... they all voted to confirm, happily. And among the Democrats E.J. seeks to rally? It wasn't just former Democrat Joe Lieberman who thought Roberts would be a great Supreme Court Chief Justice. As many Democrats voted for him as opposed him, 22. And although fewer Democrats backed Alito, it was only three fewer.

Who is E.J. going to rally? Max Baucus (MT)? Mary Landrieu (LA)? Mark Pryor (AR)? Blanche Lincoln (AR)? Tom Carper (DE)? One of the reactionary Nelsons (NE & FL)? Good luck! These people are not on our side. They didn't accidentally vote for Roberts and Alito. They may claim they didn't have the right information to vote against Bush's attack on Iraq but they certainly had all the information they needed to know how Roberts and Alito would be voting once they got on the Supreme Court. They got what they wanted, what makes them comfortable.

E.J. says the Senate should refuse to even hold hearings on a future Bush nominee (God forbid) "unless the president reaches agreement with the Senate majority on a mutually acceptable list of nominees." But E.J. isn't the Senate Majority Leader; Harry Reid is. And Reid depends on the Baucuses and the Landrieus and the Nelsons.

We now know that the president's two nominees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, are exactly what many of us thought they were: activist conservatives intent on leading a judicial counterrevolution. Yesterday's 5 to 4 ruling tossing out two school desegregation plans was another milestone on the court's march to the right.

Any senator who claims he didn't know that before the vote is too stupid, incompetent, and dense to hold the job.

If another conservative replaces a member of the court's moderate-to-liberal bloc, the country will be set on a conservative course for the next decade or more, locking in today's politics at the very moment when the electorate is running out of patience with the right.

That's why a majority of senators should warn Bush now that they will not take up his nominee unless he strictly construes the Constitution's provision that he appoint justices with "the Advice and Consent of the Senate." The rule should be: If the advice isn't taken, there will be no consent.

And if conservatives claim to believe the president is owed deference on his court appointees, they will be-- I choose this word deliberately-- lying. In 2005 conservatives had no problem blocking Bush's appointment of Harriet Miers because they could not count on her to be a strong voice for their legal causes. They revealed that their view of judicial battles is not about principle but power. When they went after Miers, conservatives lost the deference argument.

You go, girl! You know Reid's number, right? I can't wait to see how Democrats respond to DSCC pleas about donating money to Baucus, Landrieu, and Pryor this year for their re-election campaigns.