Kevin,

I understand your concern, as we all have been hurt before with Souter, Kennedy and O'Connor, but the paranoid, unsubstantiated obsession that we'll be getting "Soutered" by Roberts is simply without foundation. While he hasn't come out and publicly announced himself as a strict constitutional conservative, he has a record that's loaded with Republican pedigree.

Do you honestly believe a fiercly pro-life religious conservative president like W would add a lefty to the court? NO WAY.

Do you really believe an attorney that served under two Republican Presidents and was nominated for the SCOTUS by a third will suddenly become a Souter? NOPE.

Souter was an introverted liberal leaning choice when Bush nominated him, so it was no surprise to see him go Ginsburg on us. Roberts has demonstrated none of these traits.

Roberts' wife is in a Right to Life organization, he shot down the liberal idea that we shouldn't use military tribunals for accused terrorists, he has stated he felt Roe Vs. Wade was poorly written and constitutionally unsound. This guy is NO leftist, Kevin.

It reminds me of the "keep your f-cking gas" story my father taught me when I was young. If you don't know it, it is about a guy driving in the middle of nowhere and runs out of gas. He gets out of his car and gets a can of gas from the trunk and heads out looking for help. After walking for a couple hours he sees a farm house in the distance.

As he excitedly heads for the farm house he looks at his watch and realizes it's almost 3am. He gets worried that it'll be too late and the farmewr will be sleeping and not willing to hel;p him. Well, he works himself into a frenzy about it and starts thinking "who the hell does this farmer think he is? I need help and he's gonna slam the damn dooor right in my face, the bastard!"

So, finally, the guy gets to the door of the farmhouse with his gas can, knocks on the door, the farmer turns on the light and opens the door, and the guy throws his gas can at him, yells
"KEEP YOUR F-CKING GAS" and storms out in a huff.

Moral of the story? Don't tell Bush to "KEEP HIS F-CKING NOMINATION" just because you dreamed up a worst case scenario in your head.

Unfortunately I share the same fears detailed in this post. I do not want a nominee that is applauded by so many Democrats. That is a real concern. The only thing that gives me some comfort is that unlike Souter, Roberts has worked with many Republicans in the past and maybe, if there was a Souter in him, it would have come out. However, if you look at our recent history, no stealth candidate turned out well except for Thomas, although he had some speeches and writings which indicated how he thought. Maybe initially his mentor Renquist will keep him in check but ultimately, this nomination conerned me greatly.

It is true that Bush would not deliberately nominate a moderate, but my concern is that he is doing it but doesnt realize it.

I know enough about this nominee to know he is going to use the law and the Constitution to adjuticate. His history gives me confidence that he will not be another Souter or O'Conner. His unpopular decisions will only empower his detracters, i.e., the girl on the subway with the french fry. He follows the law, not his emotions, as O'Connor did. The law is the only criteria a judge should follow. The Congress, federal or state, should be the responsibe party for legislational matters coming before the court. Adhering to the law in question is the responsibility of the courts, not re-writing it; that is the responsibility of the legislators.

That french-fry case may be the biggest tip that Judge Roberts is a "strict constructionist". His opinion was quite sympathetic to the girl, he noted the over reaction of the police in enforcing what may have been a badly written law, but at the end of the day he ruled in favor of the law, not his emotions.

I admit I've had some uneasiness about this nomination. However, as Rush pointed out, Judge Roberts is a member of the Federalist Society. There's the french-fry case noted above, and other things that give us more of a picture than we had with Souter.

I forget who it was, but someone who knows him quite well said in an interview somewhere that he believes Judge Roberts is not quite a Scalia or Thomas, but is certainly a Rehnquist. I can live with that.

Todd, Roberts actually clerked for Reinquist, and it is true that he is most often compared to him judicially. I find that comparison very encouraging, and wouldn't be surprised to see him follow that philosophy on the SCOTUS bench.

Everyone always stumps for a Thomas/Scalia without remembering the solid constitutional conservative Rehnquist has been from day one. Not that T&S don't deserve our praise, but lets remember what a value we have in the Chief Justice who's days are now running short. Expect Rehnquist to resign shortly after Roberts is confirmed, and THAT will really be the nomination to watch.

-MZ

Judge Roberts is a member of the Federalist Society.

In the interest of accuracy, Roberts has never been a member of the Federalist Society. Rush was wrong.

All this hand-wringing by die-hards is right up the Dem's alley. Way to play into the ploy.

Why not base your opinion of the man on the man, not on how many others like or hate him. Limited as his judicial record may be, he has a long history of working with administrations sympathetic to issues we support. It's not like he had to take those jobs.

Roberts is a good man and will be an able jurist. The idea here is to return the Court to its role of interpreting what the law is, not what it should be. Do we really want another court that legislates from the bench, only in our favor? What's good for the goose may be good for the gander, but it's bad for the Republic.

Roberts is a prototype for the kind of justice we need to restore the Court. Give him a chance before you hang him out to dry.

"In the interest of accuracy, Roberts has never been a member of the Federalist Society. Rush was wrong."

Scanning the internet, a LOT of people were wrong about Roberts' membership in the Federalist Society. This link seems to explain why:

CORRECTION: Roberts Not A Member of the Federalist Society

ACSBlog previously reported that Judge John Roberts is a member of the Federalist Society. While John Roberts has addressed the conservative legal organization on more than one occasion, he has never payed the $50 to become an official member. We regret the error.