Mark Steyn vs. the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee? Not a fair fight.

Ever since prolonged attendance at "the world's greatest deliberative body" during the Clinton impeachment trial, my general line on the U.S. Senate has been to commend the example of New Zealand: They had a Senate, and they abolished it.

But, until that blessed day, I'd have been quite content for the John Roberts confirmation hearings to go on for another six months, couple of years, half a decade, until the last registered Democrat on the planet expired in embarrassment at the sheer maudlin drivel of it all. It was obvious on the first day about 20 minutes in -- i.e., about halfway through Joe Biden's first question -- that the Democrats had nothing on Roberts. But they're game guys and, like the fellow in a tight spot in a caper movie, they stuck their right hands in their pockets, pointed them through the material and pretended they had a real gun in there. By the second day, their pants had fallen down, but they bravely stood there waggling their fingers at the nominee and insisting they had enough firepower to blow his head off.

Of course, the Democrats are facing a real quandary with their vote. The New York Times says to vote No and the Washington Post says to vote Yes. And for a further difficulty, E.J. Dionne makes the case for a No vote while the so-termed Dean of Washington Journalists, David Broder, recommends a Yes vote.

And if you're a Democratic senator planning to run in 2008, what's the safest choice? Annoy the base and vote to confirm, saving your powder for the next nomination. But what if some controversial case comes up in the next few years and Roberts votes in such a way to infuriate liberals and you suddenly have to travel through the primaries why you voted to put this guy on the Court? Or vote not to confirm and then try to explain to the rest of the American electorate why a Republican Senate should pay any respect to any nominees that you might have the good fortune to send down for confirmation since you will have established a very high hurdle for any nominee to get over and a precedent for purely partisan votes on judicial nominees. Decisions, decisions.