Roberts

Well, Bush went away from the expected names on the short list and instead nominated Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to the US Supreme Court. I think, from Bush’s point of view, this is an astute pick. He is picking someone with less name recognition that some of the usual suspects (such as Alito, Wilkinson, Luttig and Owen) and henceforth, someone the Democrats likely have not spent significant amounts of time preparing for. Roberts could well turn out to be as Conservative as some of the other well-known names, but Bush is avoiding the “controversial” choices in this scenario. Furthermore, he is also appointing a young jurist who promises to be on the bench (if he makes it through Congress) for a long time.

Rather than tell you what I think of Roberts, I’ll direct you to some links which should shed some light on him. I’m sure by now we all know that he once said, “Roe is wrongly decided and should be overruled,” but at his 2003 confirmation hearing said, “"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.”

What else can we find out about the man? Here are some tidbits.

Here is Roberts’s questionnaire from his Senate confirmation.

Here is a record of his campaign contributions to Bush.

Here is a report from the People For the American Way on Roberts.

Finally, here is a report from the Alliance for Justice on Judge Roberts.

That’s a ton of reading on the guy, which I don’t even the time to summarise on and comment like I usually would.

I will leave you with a quote, however.

"The president is a man of his word," said Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group. "He promised to nominate someone along the lines of a Scalia or a Thomas, and that is exactly what he has done."