Centerfield

I think it's a much better and safer bet to say that we have fewer clues than usual upon which to base speculation about where Roberts will take the court.

It strikes me as a little off that Woo says things like "Robert is likely to take the court..." given his sparse judicial record. But maybe Woo knows him better.

Presently, there seems to be no reason to think that Roberts is a centrist or will take the court on a centrist path, unless we're thinking of centrism as anything left of Bork. So Roberts looks like a centrist to a Bork fan. How much does that tell us? Not a whole lot, I say.

I have reservations about the notion that the trend to "sparse paper trail" high court judges is a good thing. Blame for that trend may lie at the feet of those who opposed Bork, or perhaps some blame lies at the feet of those who supported someone who at the time sat a bit too far outside the mainstream of judicial thought. I don't care about the blame there. Although I'll point out that I think the relevant question is not "did Bork deserve confirmation" in the abstract, but rather "did Bork deserve confirmation by a senate composed of a democratic majority that honestly felt unwilling to consent to the appointment."

My preference is for someone with deep experience and study in constitutional matters, and someone who is willing to be forthcoming with the people about their views. In return, the people and the senate should be prepared to give fairly wide latitude to any such nominee, presuimng that they can ascertain that the nominee's views may be minority ones but not dangerously outlandish and suggestive of the possibility that his or her decisions would cause wide-ranging upheavals by contravening various of precedents.

On that count, suppose Roberts is a conservative who leans towards originalism but is respectful enough of national stability and of established precedents to adopt a goal of reasonable and gradual course corrections, as opposed to unpredictable and upsetting "I'm in charge and this is a new day dwaning" coups. Then I think he's a fine choice if you accept the notion that such a nomination is well within the purview of a conservative president with a majority of both chambers of Congress.

Good points about speculation, Brian. I don't know much about Yoo, but he is a conservative. I was wondering if his editorial was in some part a campaign commercial for the Roberts nomination, although I would hope that someone of that stature wouldn't right an article like this with a hidden motive.

I have been cautious in accepting Roberts as a candidate. On the one hand, he seems like a mild pick. On the other hand, even with his sparse paper trail, he has a history of working against Roe vs. Wade and working for school-sponsored prayer. I think he may not be the centrist that O'Connor turned out to be, and I think we need to be careful.
Peace,
Jenny

Jenny,

Problem is that as an attorney he is supposed to take an advocacy position, that doesn't speak to his judicial temperament. He might be a frothing anti-choice guy but check it at the courthouse door, as you said his lack of paper trail is unnerving. Bit he has had very few dissentions in two years at the appellate level that considering the preponderance of Clinton \ Carter appointees in that district he is either moderate, or we have yet come to appreciate the centrism of Clinton \ Carter appointees.

I think that Roberts is about the best that we might see from Bush and it was not an "in your face" pick so I say let it pass, if liberals in general or Democrats in specific want to do more to protect the court they have to figure out how to win close elections.

Obviously Prof. Yoo has drunk the right-wing kool-aid too!

Let's not forget that Yoo was one of the creative defenders of torture while he was in the Bush administration. . . .