I find Justice Roberts reasonable

It is just an impression and clearly the true test will come with the votes but he seems reasonable to me. Check out the following of his questioning of the Bush Lawyer on the right to die:

U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement argued that Congress gave federal authorities the power to regulate how drugs are used. "The most natural reading of the Controlled Substances Act is that this falls within the authority of the attorney general," he said. Roberts and several of his colleagues questioned that premise.

"What's the closest analogue to this?" the chief justice asked Clement, pressing for an example of where the U.S. attorney general overruled the states and their doctors on how legal drugs are used.

Clement paused and then responded that the Food & Drug Administration had objected in the 1970s when several states allowed the use of laetrile as a cancer treatment. "That's the FDA. What about the attorney general?" Roberts repeated.

Clement could not cite a specific example of where the attorney general had overruled the state medical authorities on the use of prescription drugs. Roberts' question highlighted that Ashcroft was claiming a new power to regulate medical practice. Oregon state lawyer Robert M. Atkinson picked up on that point, saying that "for the first time in our history ... a single, unelected federal official has decided what is accepted state medical practice."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-100505scotus_lat,0,1943465.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Who's much more into things like States' rights than ideology.

I'm a man of wealth and taste...

Hope you guess my name..

Nature of my game."

Let's hope he did a good job fooling the neo-cons and fundies.

Because now he is beholden to no one.

It suddenly dawned on him he was free?

Although I can't say I always agree with him.

But the founders elevated these men to a place where absolute objectivity is unhindered. It is there that they can seek altruism but without regard for political consequence.

I hope your sense of him is accurate. The country will have to deal with him for a long time to come.

Yes, he has been very partisan in his role of supporting Bush, but I cannot begrudge a man a higher agenda if he truly has the wherewithall to do good.

I listened closely to the hearings and didn't find him all that objectionable.

He answered philisophical questions and avoided ideological ones.

And Leahy summed it up best by making the point that pinning a nominee down on ideology is potentially misleading as every case has individual merit.

I also never saw antything from Roberts suggesting that he would actually overturn RvW... or for that matter even hear the case.

Unless someone can show me that Roberts' posturing wasnot merely to position himself for the appointment, I can say that I'm not entirely uncomfortable with him.

Now this Mier person on the other hand... I'm a little worried.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1828858&mesg_id=1830168

im really fucking worried...

Let me hold on to the hope that he's just making sure to placate the fundies enough that they stop watching.

I'll wait for his first written opinion on a decided case.

'Till then I keep my fingers crossed that he's not going to trample states' rights. (That's what Republicans are supposed to stand for.)

as any good justice would. He asked tough and difficult questions of both sides of the argument! That's what a good one is supposed to do! That's also why even the spectator reporters always say "you really couldn't tell which way they were leaning and have no idea which way the opinion will go!"

I say we stop hammering him and see how he votes!

of their argument. He asked them over a dozen questions and has already been branded AGGRESSIVE by the media in the AP article. He asks the Federal side 3 questions. :wtf:

He seems to have a consistent view on state law from his writings while he is probably morally opposed to this. If he votes to uphold state law in this case, he will have proved himself consistent.

or Miers, for that matter? . . . these are BushCo seats on the court . . . and will be for the next 20 or 30 years or more . . . the deal is "we'll appoint you, but you have to vote the way we tell you" . . .

and tell they will . . .

who's to say they must honor their end of the deal? Roberts no longer answers to George Bush, or anyone else for that matter. I don't know if he'll become a reasonable man or a right-wing nut, but one thing I must give him credit for, he's very, very intelligent, much more so than Scalia and Thomas.