Roberts is a solid jurist who will bring his expertise to the Supreme Court. He is overwhelmingly well-qualified and will be a consensus builder within the court. In my view, these are the most important issues that need to be considered when picking a Chief Justice. A good manager is needed for the job; someone who considers his colleagues viewpoints, and ensures that duties like conference calls and opinion writing are well-distributed amongst all the justices. Many Chiefs have been mediocrities because of their inability to juggle these contending roles. Roberts seems poised to continue that tradition that began under Rehnquist. Some in the Senate will oppose him due to some of his more conservative views, but mere politics alone shouldn't be the deciding issue here. You want a candidate who has a clear grasp of the law and will interpret it with fairness. Roberts clearly has a modest view of the role of the judiciary and he believes in that upholding precedent is important for the general stability of the legal system. He is hardly an extremist on any question. It's unfair to ask of Roberts how he would vote on any one issue like abortion. The context of each individual case has to be judged on its merit alone. You can't force a candidate to pre-judge a case or set a standard before its even set! Should Democrats oppose his nomination, it will only weaken their hand in negotiations should Bush really pick a candidate next time who might not be so imminently qualified, being that they're set on opposing whatever candidate he decides on. In short, they ought to save their gunpowder if they want to get anything accomplished. The Roberts pick isn't going to shift the court in any direction. The bottom line is that if Presidents can't pick candidates for the high court with unblemished careers like Roberts, they will instead gravitate towards candidates who are of a lesser quality but who are ideologues who will excite their political bases. In Roberts case, it seems that he will be confirmed; the only question that is left is by what margin.

I'm impressed with the choice so far. A quote John Roberts made yesterday struck a chord in me: I have no platform. Judges are not politicians who can promise to do certain things in exchange for votes. If he's sincere as his word, he's nailed what a good judge means to me. A good judge doesn't have their judgement tainted by deep prejudices that keep the mind from seeing the true picture of a specific case. If a judge's positions are too predictable due to personal biases, it takes the point away of having debates for the judge's behalf. People complain about the courts being politicized all the time. I believe Roberts is true enough to the Founding Father's ideal of judicial fairness and sharp enough as a thinker to deserve this nomination.

He should breeze through. The fun is now handicapping the no votes. I'll start with the following: Babs Boxer (D) California--the idiot's delight Patty Murray (D) Washington--stupid people need a senator, too; Charles Schumer (D) New York--senator windbag; Patrick Leahy (D) Vermont--senator yesterday's news.

seems like a decent enough fellow. not filled with ego. appears as if he will look at cases with at least an attempt at impartiality, which is what a judge should do but often does not. more important than his ideological bent to me is his expressed desire to maintain stability within the law. that is a good thing. major upheaval is not what is needed from the supreme court.

I'll give him a five because he's more than a potential nominee...he actually is one now. Nominees like Roberts-those with lengthy legal careers yet with seemingly little if any controversy injected into them- tend to become justices who switch thier views once they get the robe. A good point is made when one asks how someone could be on the planet for fifty years but still maintain vague views on such crucial issues. Conservatives seeking comfort in seeing that far left groups disdain him should think twice: the extreme left is bound to hate any Republican nominee for the Supreme Court. I understand the concern in ensuring that nominees get confirmed but when you have a Republican majority in so many aspects of goverment (both local and federal) and you have justices who are the epitome of liberal judicial activism like Ginsberg and Breyer on the court...it's time to change priorities. My main fear is not so much that Roberts won't be a Scalia or Rehnquist but rather that he will become yet another David Souter (a mistake, mind you, made by the first President Bush and one that the American people will have to deal with for years to come).

May not have a huge amount of experience,but still has the intelligence and ostensibly the forbearance to get the job done.Will make a fine addition to the high court in my opinion.

He's paid his dues and is a more than worthy candidate. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School-that says a lot. Take a look at his experience, the Presidents he has worked for, and his experience arguing cases before the Supreme Court. He should be easily confirmed.

He's the guy! Former Rehnquist clerk. One of a select, few lawyers who has tried several cases before the Supreme Court. Limited paper trail as a judge. How many gauntlets are they gonna throw down in anticipation of the confirmation hearings? Here's the burning question: is he obligated to answer the question, posed by Chuck Schumer in his upcoming confirmation hearing: Would you overturn Roe v. Wade? (Hint: he probably won't.)

Evidently he rated a 5 on Bush's list: he's the choice.