Quite honestly, I’ve read as much as I could since finding out Bush’s pick, and I simply can’t form much of an oppinion on Roberts one way or another. He’s smart as Hell, that’s clear enough. He seems to be pretty right-wing in at least some of his rulings as an appeals judge, but those are so few. His career as an attorney also indicates a pretty strong right-wing predilection; but often conditions demanded a right-wing argument for a right-wing client, and the paucity of public communication from Roberts on ideological issues outside of a strict court setting as a lawyer or a judge makes it difficult to peg the guy. One could be optimistic and suspect he is an S.D. O’Connor in the makings; but he’s almost certainly not another Souter, and I have to wonder, given how Bush 41 was burned with that pick if there’s a lot those in that Federalist club have shared with the Bushniks than we know to make Bush 43 sufficiently confident about this particular somewhat mysterious character. A Scalia in sheep’s clothing? Maybe not, but something just short of that? Quite possibly.
I’ll not yet form any opinions about John Roberts until I hear more about him, except that we can consider Row v. Wade overturned. 
Why would Sandra Day O’Connor quit at such a critical point, when our nation is divided more than ever and she knows she holds the most important vote on the Supreme Court (she’s usually the swing vote)? I’m pretty sure that she’s not the biggest fan of Bush, so why would she just be handing him the political Ace of Spades?
My pick would’ve been Edith Brown Clement, who Bush himself put on the U.S. Court of Appeals (confirmed by a 99-0 vote!)…
Adam
The Solicitor General of the United States isn’t just any lawyer.
No. You hire lawyers based on their mad skillz, not their sympathy with your position.
Family reasons; her husband has Alzheimers.
Maybe for traffic court, but not as the Solicitor General.
You have a point there, in that a Republican administration will fill slots like this with Republicans, and among them there will be broad agreement about most issues.
That does not mean, though, that a personally held opinion can be exactly inferred by examining work prepared in an official capacity.
Deputy Solicitor General.
I know what the word means.
My mistake was in thinking you were trying to make an actual point, not play cutesy word games.
Nex
FYI, I don’t know what a Nex is, nor how that got into my post.
For some reason, I’m now picturing Bricker delivering a brief in l337.
Right. So if I am perfectly fine with women choosing their roles in society- working in any business, juggling work and children- and support equal pay for equal work, etc.- I’m “always opposed to freedom of choice for women” because I don’t suppot their ‘right’ to have an abortion?
I guess that fits in with the whole “pro-business that does not directly help the environment is pro-pollution” motif you’ve got going.
This has already been refuted.
You have no idea how things actually work, do you? He will ALWAYS argue the government’s position regardless of his personal feelings because that’s his job. Jesus, take a civics class, would you?
Then, assuming the confirmation hearings don’t fnd any nasty wriggly things under any rocks, the Democrats would be well advised to let this nomination sail through easily, showing they can be big-minded bipartisans instead of kneejerk obstructionists.
Save the fights to the last ditch for the hard right winger that gets nominated to replace Rehnquist. Save the partisan vitriol for pounding at Rove, and any other administration official shown to have been involved in the Plame outing.
Weakened, yes, refuted, no.
This is pretty good marketing. For the extreme anti-Roe, we have a wink and a nudge, “He’s One of US, just like the Leader promised, but we can’t say so out loud or the liberals might thwart God’s Will, so keep it under your hat, and we’ll outsmart them!” For pro-choice, the arguments already advanced here: “He was arguing as a professional, his own views aren’t really known, might even be conservative in the sense of not overturning settled cases, could be worse…”
And when questioned, he’ll clam up Thomas style: why, no, I hadn’t given it much thought, certainly not going to pre-judge cases before they are before me, that would be wrong…
Shrewd marketing.
I’m just trying to stay current. If the Seventh Circuit can quote Ludacris…
(No lie:)
From US v. Murphy.
I’ve got to disagree with this. In my experience, however much the truth of ‘the lawyer is the advocate’ might apply in general, it does not apply for this slot.
The Solicitor General’s office is an inherently political one. Each political appointee in that office is going to be thoroughly vetted out in how his views agree/disagree with the administration’s views. If Roberts was up there arguing and writing the brief then it’s not a real leap to believe that he actual believes and supports what he’s writing. If he disagreed then some other lawyer from the SG office would be up there making the case.
The worst part is that Ludacris was actually rapping about gardening and they completely misquoted him. Lousy activist judges.
It’s all part of my evil plan and I see it’s working! 
Lighten up–I was down when I posted originally.
None of us know how this guy will turn out. I agree with luc --this admin is a shrewd marketer. Let’s see where we go with it.