How does a rumor get started? These days, it’s the Internet. From the Christian Coalition blog:

Liberals threaten to filibuster Roberts
As expected, liberal members of the US Senate are threatening to filibuster Roberts’ nomination to the Supreme Court - especially if they don’t get the answers they want on issues such as abortion. (h/t Confirm Them) Aren’t these the same folks who said there shouldn’t be a “litmus” test for judges?? Just curious.

Follow that link to “Confirm Them,” “a project of RedState.org,” and you find this gem:

Senators Boxer and Cantwell say that Judge Roberts must not only disclose how he would have voted in the 5-4 Casey decision in 1992 (modifying but not overturning Roe v. Wade), but additionally Roberts must also support that decision in order to get their votes.

Previously, Boxer threatened a filibuster if Roberts refuses to oblige regarding this issue. Likewise, Senator Durbin also threatened a filibuster if Judge Roberts disagrees with Durbin about another case.

Follow those links, and you get this:

Associated Press reports:

Boxer called a threat to legalized abortion an “extraordinary circumstance.” “It means a minimum of 5,000 women a year will die. So all options are on the table,” she said.

That is baloney. First of all […]

and this:

Curry’s MSNBC article also includes this unfortunate quote from Senator Durbin of Illinois:

“If they don’t respect the Griswold decision, as far as I am concerned they should be filibustered,” Durbin said.

So here we go again with the filibusters. […]

What’s the problem? Well, the Boxer quote was from July 5, and the Durbin quote was from June 9 – long before Roberts was even nominated. They weren’t talking about Roberts at all – just some hypothetical raging ideologue. (It remains to be seen whether Roberts really is one.)

I guess they were short on filibuster threats, so they decided to dig some up from the vault. Meanwhile, after Roberts’ nomination approximately no one in the Senate has threatened a filibuster. Several “Gang of 14″ Democrats felt obligated to emphasize their lack of threat.

“This is a credible nominee, and not one that – as far as we know now – has a record that in any sense could be described as extremist,” said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., said Bush had “made a wise choice.” Asked whether a filibuster was likely, Nelson said: “I think it’s fair to say I don’t see anything coming out right now.”

“My sense is so far, so good,” summed up Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark. (7/21)

U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd says he feels a kindred spirit in Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts, who shares Byrd’s interests in the Constitution, Cicero and John Marshall.

“I was favorably impressed,” Byrd told reporters after meeting Roberts. “I like him.” (8/2)

It’s like the old game “telephone,” where one kid whispers to another, who whispers the message to the next, and so on — until the message is utter nonsense.

Here, the message was apparently that some Democrats are asking questions about Roberts. Not too exciting, but take some pre-nomination positioning, give the links tasty names, and next thing you know you have a headline — “Liberals threaten to filibuster Roberts” — completely opposed to reality.

I wonder where we’ll see it show up next?