I agree on both counts.

Now you're starting to make sense again Jack.

Jack--Roberts may be "more moderate" than the next jackbooted thug coming down the pike, but that doesn't make him "moderate."

Better get used to it, Dave. He's what passes for "moderate" these days. Line 'em up -- he's third from the right out of the eight, next to Kennedy. And he'll be fifth from the right out of nine before long.

At worst, Roberts is a wash now that he will fill Rehnquist's position. Rehnquist was a political creature disguised as a jurist, who had no quams about bending his judicial "philosophy" to reach a conservative end. If Roberts follows this path, which I suspect he will, then we have a status quo.

If, on the other hand, he follows a Scalia path then he will still reach those same conservative ends 95% of the time, but adherence to a genuine philosphy of jurispridence will lead him to surprising results such as Blakely, and Crawford. I hope he takes this path, for though I disagree with it, I can at least accord it respect.

But in any case, yes, now that he fills the Rhenquist position, his is not the nomination to fight. That is coming. Where, oh where, are you William Brennan when we need you the most?

I completely agree. There's no point in pressing Senators for "No" votes on this nominee who has no clear record to attack, and clearly is a qualified jurist. I don't think I'm going to agree with much that Roberts does as a Justice, but Bush was shrewd in his choice.

Roberts is probably a wolf in sheep's clothing, but he still has the clothing on. Until we get a nominee (ever again?) whose clothing is off, it just hurts the credibility of the left to cry wolf. (Bush, of course, has no clothes.)

And, as Bronson notes, in this case it's a wash. If Democratic Senator's are going to go to the mat (test the nuclear button), they should wait for the nomination to replace a liberal, such as Stevens.

I can't shake the feeling that this guy has David Souter written all over him! I don't understand why the righties are so sure of him.

I totally agree (though I am holding my nose) on the first count. But as far as Ted goes..I'm not sure. Let me just say that since I am from Massachusetts I am biased.. I can't help myself...we are raised believing in the Kennedys and the Red Sox...it's in our blood. But seriously too many times Ted Kennedy is the lone voice for civil rights for all. He has figured (in many ways..some a little dicey)how his faith and his commitment to everyones rights can co-exist. I'm not ready for his voice to be absent.

"Roberts may be "more moderate" than the next jackbooted thug coming down the pike, but that doesn't make him 'moderate.'"

That's the spirit!! -- that keeps the republic writ large these days Red.

Maybe that will all change next year, but I've heard that before too.

As someone else said, John Ashcroft to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, will be the nomination to fight. Just kidding… I hope.

More likely the next nominee will be Alberto Gonzalez.

I have to 2nd Danger's comment; when the other side has 7-8 guys defining the extreme rightward edge, it's important to have someone out there for "far left" opinions like basic civil rights. Without that balance, they'll simply pick new Senators to be the face of the "extreme left," and the "middle" shifts to the right. Teddy's the anchor in this epic tug-of-war.

"When I returned, MaryJo and the car were gone"

"Hey Nephew Willy... Wake up, let's go to Au Bar"

Independant voters are happy that fat Teddy is the poster child for Democrats. He may have been outdone in lunacy yesterday by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D.Cal) who launched into a bizarre tirade while addressing Judge Roberts, talking about how the Nazi soldiers took the Jewish people's shoes. Say what ???

Having Ted Kennedy address Judge Roberts about integrity is like Dennis Rodman addressing Bill Bradley on the tax code.

I dunno... I saw Robert Byrd on TV last night and he's a FAR better poster boy for retirement than Ted Kennedy.