More Details

From the CNN story. It seems we know the reason why Bush appointed him:

During the dispute over the 2000 presidential election, Roberts was part of a team of Republican lawyers and former Supreme Court law clerks who assisted the Bush-Cheney campaign.

Another reason he's not fit to serve on the Court; there's no legal justification for that decision. The Democratic response (this is Reid after all) has been timid:

A spokesman for Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate Democratic leader, said Roberts has "suitable legal credentials."
But the spokesman, Jim Manley, added, "Now he needs to demonstrate to the Senate that he has a commitment to core American values of freedom, equality and fairness."

You could have just said "we will crush him like a bug". That would have really done. On a similar note, the NY Times reports that Seth Waxman, Solicitor General under Clinton, is breaking ranks. You're not helping, Waxman. ABC News is reporting that Roberts supports Operation Rescue (an anti-women terrorist group), rendering the First Amendment useless, and handcuffing 12-year-old girls for eating French Fries, though he did display sanity in stating that Americans can't sue foreign citizens in U.S. court, as well as in trying to break up Microsoft. ABC News also has quotes from James Warner and Joe Lieberman suggesting that the Gang of 14 will prevent a filibuster. Here's hoping not. MSNBC reports that Roberts helped Toyota avoid having to help its disabled workers, and tried his darndest to allow discrimination in college athletics. Phew. That's a lot of Roberts blogging.
P.S. See here for confirmation that Roberts' briefs reflect his views, and here for what he thinks about Bush's detainee policy (he basically wants to let Bush do anything).
P.P.S. See here for Roberts' position on Kelo vs. New London (he's for it).

Comments

[Greg Kuperberg]

Dylan,

I don't see that this nomination is so cut and dried. Roberts looks like a shrewd choice. Just because he argued A, B, or C as a solicitor, that doesn't mean that he would write exactly the same opinions as a Justice. Likewise his court rulings cited by ABC hinge on technical questions like jurisdiction, and also don't quite prove that he's a Neanderthal.

That said, "shrewd" is not the same as "benevolent". Bush obviously trusts Roberts, and that could either be for acceptable reasons, or for terrible reasons. Maybe Roberts' intelligence will translate to judicial wisdom; or maybe Republican ideology will poison his brain.

[Minipundit]

Look at this Law.com article. Money quote:

...those who know Roberts say he, unlike Souter, is a reliable conservative who can be counted on to undermine if not immediately overturn liberal landmarks like abortion rights and affirmative action. Indicators of his true stripes cited by friends include: clerking for Rehnquist, membership in the Federalist Society, laboring in the Ronald Reagan White House counsel's office and at the Justice Department into the Bush years, working with Kenneth Starr among others, and even his lunchtime conversations at Hogan & Hartson. "He is as conservative as you can get," one friend puts it. In short, Roberts may combine the stealth appeal of Souter with the unwavering ideology of Scalia and Thomas.

As for the ABC decisions, I don't think that supporting a flag amendment is a jurisdictional issue. The Operation Rescue thing was a conflict over whether preventing women from going to a doctor discriminated against women (Roberts said no, predictably). The 12-year-old case was a matter of whether or not her 4th or 5th amendment rights were violated. Judging as the due process clause allows abortion and gay sex, I would say that it allows one to eat French fries.

[Greg Kuperberg]

Well, maybe you are right.

[Minipundit]

I think this may be the first time I won an argument with you.