Joseph Sobran writes about the new course in judicial confirmations:

But eventually the Democrats came to realize the tremendous power potential of the Federal judiciary. Aggressive or “activist” judges might change the most basic rules of American society through tendentious interpretation of the Constitution, without the bother of winning elections and passing legislation. So, especially after World War II, the courts began imposing a liberal agenda on myriad issues.

For anyone who still didn’t get it, the 2000 election showed just how crucial control of the Court could be. George W. Bush’s victory came, quite literally, by a single vote. Today both parties know very clearly what the stakes are. And American politics will never go back to “normal.” Those days are over. So it’s quite understandable that the Democrats may not want to lie back and let Roberts have a share of the Supreme Court’s arbitrary power for perhaps thirty years or so. No matter how nice he seems, no matter how professionally “qualified” he is, nobody can be really qualified to possess that kind of legal authority — the last word on how Americans shall live — for the remainder of what may be a very long life. What lies just ahead? Maybe filibusters, calumnies, and Ted Kennedy diatribes — ugly stuff, all very distasteful, but such is the price of a system that saddles us with a puissant nine-member body beyond political control, beyond removal, and virtually beyond correction even when it acts most egregiously.
http://www.sobran.com/columns/

First of all Sobran doesn't mention the results of re-counts that showed Bush won in Florida, meaning he won by more than just one Supreme Court Justice's vote. Secondly, he forgets that the Republicans hold a majority in the Senate and can change Senate rules on filibusters. But I do appreciate his honesty when he says that Democrats have found a way to circumvent the electorate and their elected representatives.