. . . and the winner is

The Supreme Court nomination blog has all the best info and links about John G. Roberts.

My feeling is this: it's as bad and less bad then I was expecting. It isn't someone from the 5th circuit, nor is it someone who is lacking in decorum and intelligence. One might assume that would always be the case, but not necessarily. Some of Bush's runners ups could really wow you with their crassness and their inability to articulate solid judicial opinions. I may disagree with Roberts on most points, but at least his arguments are crafted in a way which demands engagement and often respect.

That doesn't mean he doesn't have opinions on record that are shocking to anyone left of the far-right -- many of his findings have been downright gross in areas of concern to women, workers, defendants, the environment. . . the list goes on. His seeming lack of stupidity does nothing to prove that he is anything less than a movement conservative. Remember, Scalia's nomination hearing was

"so dull that one Democrat cajoled: "Let yourself go. It's pretty boring so far."

He made it onto court without anyone so much as coughing very loudly. Scalia!
Whatever the scenario, Bush Jr. getting a Supreme Court nomination when Clinton didn't is a travesty. The fact that he may get two or possibly three (hold on Judge Stevens, I know you were born before the Great Depression but so was Bea Arthur and she's still working. . . right?) is something that I literally have nightmares about.

This guy has clerked for Rehnquist, worked in the Reagan administration, argued vocally against an interpretation of the 4th amendement right to privacy. I take back what I said earlier: it's all bad news. If you have any soothing stories, comforting advise, or cynicism to offer -- do. herwise I'm going to be up all night watching CSPAN.

Department of Justice nomination info
NARAL's take on Roberts
People for the American Way's report
Under Their Robes (the best gossip colum of all the judicial gossip columns.)