Democrats in the U.S. Senate are so Pavlovian in their opposition to anything Bush that it's a good thing Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were nominated to the Supreme Court by one William Jefferson Clinton, because I doubt they would have been confirmed had they been nominated by George Walker Bush.

Seriously.

You've heard the stories.

Even prior to any nomination, Sen. Chuck Schumer, New York's own "Dr. No," was overheard on a train chattering to some friend on his cell phone as to how he was "going to war" to obstruct and obfuscate whomever Bush were to name to the court. This even before he knew who the nominee would be.

Certainly, within minutes after Bush nominated appeals court judge John Roberts to the high court, The Gentleman from New York proved once again that the most dangerous place in Washington is anywhere between him and a television camera, and denounced the choice.

This from the same man who had previously offered praise of Roberts. "There's no question that Judge Roberts has outstanding legal credentials and an appropriate legal temperament and demeanor," Schumer said prior to the nomination. And isn't that what the Constitution of the United States calls for in a justice?

Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy said on a radio call-in show he would not vote to confirm Roberts for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court if the appeals court judge does not proclaim his support for the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion ruling. Leahy suggested that Roberts should answer questions about previous Supreme Court decisions when the judge appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee for confirmation hearings.

Democrats also expect Roberts to telegraph how he would vote on issues that are not even before the court yet, and may never be.

Fascinating, considering that these same Democrats gave now-Justice Ginsburg a pass on those very prognostications when she sat before the Judiciary Committee several years ago. Surely, they wouldn't have been so deferential had Bush nominated her.

Not surprisingly, Moveon.org got into the act, posting a fill-in-the-blank petition opposing Roberts on their Web site. They would have inserted the names of almost any Republican-nominated judge:

"In nominating (JohnRobertsJaniceRogersBrownAlbertoGonzalezEdithBrownClementoranyotherBushnominee name here), the president has chosen a right wing corporate lawyer and ideologue for the nation's highest court instead of a judge who would protect the rights of the American people."

Check out their Web site. I don't make this stuff up.

The Democrat leadership and the angry left want to legislate from the bench. They have had a tough time winning at the ballot box, so they are determined to make policy through the courts. It is their strategy to gain power by tenure by placing judges in lifetime terms, and legislating through the judicial branch.

For these souls who cannot count to 278 (number of electoral votes required to elect the president), I have a refresher course in Civics 101.

1 - There are three branches of government. The executive (President Bush); the legislative (House and Senate); and judicial (the courts).

2 The legislative branch makes laws and changes them when necessary. Simply, it is the responsibility of the Congress to make laws -- be they good or bad laws.

3 The judicial branch interprets laws -- good or bad -- in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. Judges are not empowered, nor should they be, to re-write laws to their liking or to their political ideology.

I don't recall reading in any of my civics textbooks in the Eufaula, Okla., public school district that Congress can block a nominee because they don't like how they think he or she will vote on an issue that may or may not come before them. Or maybe I missed that chapter.

I certainly missed the chapter where the U.S. Senate and its allies on the left attempt to obtain confidential adoption records on Supreme Court nominees. This is as low as it gets.

But it's really happening. Because John Roberts believes that Congress passes laws and the courts interpret them, because he doesn't believe in an activist court, and even perhaps because Mrs. John Roberts is a successful attorney who belongs to a pro-life organization, The New York Times is looking into the adoption of the two Roberts children, ages 5 and 4.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Texas Republican who has had her own experiences with media probing into the adoptions of her children, has called on her colleagues and the media to show "simple decency" on this matter. I wonder if they comprehend that concept.

Because this nominee doesn't pass the litmus test of the Left and they cannot assign thought to him, they tell us he is not fit to serve. And now nothing, sadly, is off limits.

J.C. Watts is chairman of J.C. Watts Companies, a business consulting group, and former chairman of the Republican Conference of the U.S. House, where he served as an Oklahoma representative from 1995 to 2002. He writes twice monthly for the Review-Journal.