The biggest story in Washington this week will be the full Senate vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. However, those who hone in on just the vote have missed the "real" story within the story.

Let me explain.

The most interesting aspect is not the actual vote itself, because with 55 Republicans and a crossover of half the 45 Senate Democrats, that's nothing more than a formality and Roberts will be easily confirmed. The real fun is watching the handful of liberal Democrats posture, finagle, obstruct and practice petty partisanship while trying desperately to find a reason, any reason, not to confirm Roberts. In the end, those who vote not to confirm are doing nothing more than showing their true colors - and of course tow the line for fringe special interest groups.

After enduring three days of questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee - where, by the way, he was the smartest, most articulate and wittiest person in the room - Roberts proved to be a highly qualified nominee and certainly in the legal mainstream of what the majority of Americans believe.

And, oh my, what pride in the state of Illinois I felt when both Sen. Dick Durbin and Sen. Barack Obama both said they would vote against Roberts. I would guess, particularly in the case of Durbin, that his "no" vote is based on him being squarely in the "mainstream" of what Illinois residents want and believe. Or then again, it could be based on what television producer Norman Lear wants and believes.

According to a story that appeared in the Chicago Tribune, Durbin and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., attended an event in Los Angeles on behalf of People for the American Way, a liberal activist group founded by Lear. The event was held the weekend prior to the Judiciary Committee vote and, according the story, Lear lashed out at Democrats for not mounting more resistance to Roberts' nomination.

While there will be those who claim I'm jumping to conclusions, it certainly does seem a little more than ironic that only four days after the conversation with Lear, both Durbin and Schumer voted against the Roberts confirmation. It was probably just a coincidence, don't you think?

During the hearings, Roberts gave one particular answer that sums up why some Democrats cannot vote for his confirmation. Ironically, that answer came under questioning from Durbin about "personal freedom."

Durbin asked: "If you've made one point many times over during the course of the last three days, it is that as a judge you will be loyal and faithful to the process of law, to the rule of law. But, beyond loyalty to the process of law how do you view the law when it comes to expanding our personal freedoms?"

Roberts' answer, I think, is all we can hope for from any judge.

Roberts answered: "Somebody asked me, 'are you going to be on the side of the little guy?' And you obviously want to give an immediate answer. But as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But, if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That's the oath. The oath that a judge takes is not that 'I'll look out for particular interests' ¦ the oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States and that is what I would do."

Don't you have to believe Roberts sent cold chills down the spines of some of the Democrats when he noted the oath of a judge is not to look out for "particular interests?"

Many of the Democrats, including Durbin and Obama, gave vague, convoluted reasons about not knowing enough about Roberts to vote for his confirmation. I think it's interesting to note that the two senators from Illinois are voting "no" alongside the likes of Teddy Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Joseph Biden and John Kerry. Now there's a mainstream, middle-of-the-road crowd, isn't it?

The "real story" about a handful of leading Democrats casting "no" votes against a man with unquestionable character and integrity is only more ammunition for me to point to the continued downward spiral of the national Democratic Party.

You see, much of the liberal agenda of this group - an agenda that could never gain support at the voting booth - has been accomplished through the courts. Recent court decisions concerning eminent domain and partial birth abortion prove that. Would Americans, if given the opportunity to vote, approve the practice of taking property from one person and giving it to another? Would voters approve a ban on the barbaric procedure of partial birth abortion? Or, would Americans vote to approve same-sex marriage or a ban on the Pledge of Allegiance? I believe anybody who's truly in the mainstream would say that the answer to those questions is no, no and no.

I'll close today's offering by giving readers a small assignment.

This week when the "yes" and "no" votes are cast by the full U.S. Senate, I challenge you to search out those who vote against Roberts' confirmation. When you locate those names you'll find a group far out of the mainstream and far more interested in pandering to radical special interest groups than to their constituents.

JIM MUIR is a columnist for The Southern Illinoisan and can be reached at writeon1@shawneelink.net.