He appears to be a person who reads the Constitution, and applies it on the basis of what it says. Not on what he wishes it says, or what he thinks it ought to say - what it says. (See Ann Althouse for the much sexier version of this proposition.)

This is good for conservatives because that is (generally and broadly) what we want out of our judges.

Robert- if that's an accurate assessment, I'll be delighted.

With that said, I want to know what he thinks the Constitution says. Particularly regarding the Bill of Rights (all of 'em, not just the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th).

from

http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/070034.asp

"...John Roberts was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit court of Appeals in the last few years, though he was first nominated in 1991 by Bush 41. He is a "middle-aged white guy," but he is universally regarded as among the best Supreme Court advocate in the nation, bar none. He clerked for Rehnquist, was deputy SG, is a remarkable oral advocate and a sharp legal mind. He is liked and admired by all of the current justices, who regularly look forward to cases in which he is representing one of the parties because of the quality of his work. If a case is winnable, he will win it. It is a travesty he was not confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in the 1990s when first nominated. Setting aside ideology — and he has a sterling conservative reputation despite the relative lack of a paper trail — he is close to the Platonic ideal of what a Supreme Court nominee should be.

Sounds good to me.

"I do not want to fall into the Administration's trap of getting so distracted by this judicial nomination that I don't pay attention to other injustices of the Administration, like the war in Iraq, the detainees, military tribunals, the potential abolition of habeas corpus in death cases, and Rove Gate, to name a few."

Saner people?

o/t - Where does the expression "crack pot" come from?

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-cra2.htm

Google is your friend.

The president made an EXCELLENT choice & has my 110% support.

Here's something that works for me: When I don't know about someone, I look to people whose judgement I respect who DO know about that person and listen to what they have to say. Hugh Hewitt worked with this guy (office right down the hall), knows him well both professionally and personally, and has nothing but great things to say about him. All the right-thinking bloggers who are lawyers (look at Powerline and The Volokh Conspiracy, for example) say he's as conservative as Luttig and one of the best, if not THE best, appellate lawyer in the country. Good enough and then some for me.

Roberts has 90% of my support. The fact that he's got the Daily Kos guys up in arms if good enough for me. :P

This cracked me up - acomment from 'Phoenix Rising' on the TalkLeft blog:

"What little information we have outside of his political career does not sound encouraging. His private law partners reportedly say he's a solid conservative."

You think?

Jim D.

So you don't know who he is, what he stands for, what he's likely to do or even when, er, whether, he leaked Valerie Plame's name to reporters.

Exxxxxcellent....

Erk... I feel my usual self-annoyance when I follow a link to KOS against my better judgment.

These people are not competent to run a hot dog stand, let alone a government.

"It is a travesty he was not confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in the 1990s when first nominated."

He was nominated in 1991. He's 50 now, so he would have been 36 then; that's awfully young for a seat on the DC Circuit. Assuming he graduated law school at 25 and clerked for one year, he would have only had 10 years of experience as a practicing lawyer. I don't think it's a travesty to keep him of the DC Circuit at that early point in his career.

The Moonbat Left has their panties in a wad over Roberts. That coupled with all the center-right endorsement is good enough for me.

Will they filibuster at all? Considering Schumer's reaction, I'm guessing that someone like him or Boxer will try it. Will the Gang Of 14 come through with a cloture vote? At this point I would say yes. This should be a relatively smooth confirmation.

One down, two to go.

“Friends of the court” supporting the terrorist included dozens of law professors, “305 United Kingdom and European Parliamentarians,” “Military Attorneys Detailed to Represent Ali Hamza Amhad Sulayman Al Bahlui,” “Military Law Practitioners and Academicians,” “National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers,” “Human Rights First,” “General Merrill A. McPeak,” “People for the American Way,” “The World Organization for Human Rights USA,” “Urban Morgan Institute for Human Rights”—and, worst of all, the prestigious “Association of the Bar of the City of New York.”

Despite this array of “friends,” the Court of Appeals panel—one of whom was John G. Roberts, Jr., President Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court—reversed Judge Robertson, rejecting his conclusion that Hamdan was covered by the Geneva Convention, which could be enforced in a United States federal court. Robertson had conveniently ignored the Supreme Court precedent of Johnson v. Eisentrager (which the current liberal Court majority massaged, in order to reach its conclusion in Rasul), which held that the Geneva Convention, a compact between governments, was not judicially enforceable in a private lawsuit. Period!

"Bush got what he wanted – a Supreme Court nominee too unobjectionable to be filibustered. I wonder if Bush knows to be careful about getting what he wished for."

Archive that for a few year years, until the time when Roberts is the new version of SD O'Connor. Then you can see if this is just another nail in the American coffin.

My guess is: YES

IMO: He's an ass-kisser and a whelp.

One good decision does not a USSC Justic make.

"He appears to be a person who reads the Constitution, and applies it on the basis of what it says." -- Robert

I remember they said pretty much the same thing about Souter.

Roberts has been on both sides of almost all issues. He is smack dab in the middle. Should be a very easy confirmation. That does not mean no screaming and shouting. No filibuster. should be on the Bench in Oct.

I still think that the Court is too corrupt to be salvaged by the nomination of one good man. Assuming he does apply the law faithfully (ie: vots to overturn Roe, Willard, Kelo, etc), the Court as an institution is still wholly corrupt because it has appropriated to itself the power to decide all major issues. Roberts might be a good Robed master, but he still is a Robed Master.

Yikes.. Preview is my friend. Apologies for the spelling errors there.

Basically, there's every indication that Roberts is Rehnquist Part II. For conservatives, that may not be heaven, but if you can get another Rehnquist without much of a battle, that's not bad. For libertarians, another Thomas would have been better.

The last time an unknown candidate was nominated for the Supreme Court by a President named Bush, his name was David Souter.

I hope that what has been said about Roberts in the comments above is true and that we don't end up regretting this choice.

From what I've read about him, Roberts is a member of the Federalist Club which is, as the name implies for all you early American historians, a group who supports the federalist ideals that the court is supposed to interpret the law, not set the law.

If he holds true to that principle, then he's going to be a dandy judge (though, the same would be said about anyone lefty or righty).

On abortion, I've heard that he was quoted much like O'Conner was in that (I'm paraphrasing here) "Roe v Wade may not reflect my personal stance, but it reflects the court's interpretation of the Constitution and the fact that I had a case where I helped argued that it does not accurately do so has no implication on my stance on the issue, I was simply doing my job."

The Federalist Society generally attracts conservative and/or libertarian leaning lawyers. That said, the group takes no official positions and is best known for sponsoring debates open to liberals, so membership doesn't really tell you as much as you might think. Basically any ambitious Republican lawyer in DC would be a fool not to join a network like that.

greg,

You make it sound as if he has to apologize for seeing the obvious faults in the legalistic reasoning of Roe. I agree with Ann Coulter that no one should apologize for being pro-life, ESPECIALLY if he's a practicing Catholic.

The fact that he's got the Daily Kos guys up in arms if good enough for me.

Bush could have nominated a toaster, and that group of nutballs would still froth at the mouth over the evil conservative agenda of said toaster and how it's biased against dark toast, or something equally silly.

Mr. Lion -- Who was the British admiral who said, "I'll put a midshipman's jacket on a broomstick and make them salute it!"

And while I suppose that there has never been an opinion by Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas that those on the right have disagreed with (otherwise they would have been wholly unqualified to sit on the court), many of those on the left still seem to view this as nothing but bloodsport.

If Mr. Roberts will just interpret the Constitution faithfully I will be quite happy. And yes, I realize that there are different ways to do so, but, alas, too many want the Supreme Court to apply the 0th Amendment -- Do good -- quite liberally (no pun intended). Everything else is commentary, and generally uninformed, insanely partisan commentary at that.

Charles Austin — Yeah, I remember how ecstatic the conservatives were when SCOTUS upheld McCain-Feingold...

Rod - you got it!