So, the Dems want to filibuster Bush's next Supreme Court nominee. The reasons to do this appear to be some vague notion about the ideological leanings of the potential nominee. This would make him or her unqualified to be on the court. What the Dems mean to say is that, if the nominee agrees with Bush on issues instead of them, then the nominee should be blocked. So if a partisan judge gets the nomination, they're going to do the partisan thing and filibuster. Makes sense to me. Hasn't the standard for judges always been whether they agree with the elected branches of government? Well, actually, no.
I have every respect for differences of opinion. But I do not remember Republicans getting this upset over Clinton's nominee. In fact, I think they just made sure that he was qualified and confirmed him. It is not as if the court was any less important back then either.
The major problem with Roberts was his failure to explain how he planned to vote on every single issue. It is perfectly within his right to be professional and refrain from announcing things before they even come close to happening. In response to the possibility of filibuster, I would just say that Dems are upset they could not find anything terribly wrong with Roberts and they're itching for a fight so they can get their constituents going. Don't we all want the good old days of scandal ridden hearings such as Bork's and Thomas's back again?