It’s titled “Souter in Roberts clothing,” and concludes:
He has given us a Supreme Court nomination that will placate no liberals and should please no conservatives.
Maybe Roberts will contravene the sordid history of “stealth nominees” and be the Scalia or Thomas Bush promised us when he was asking for our votes. Or maybe he won’t. The Supreme Court shouldn’t be a game of Russian roulette.
Things suddenly got very interesting.
Blogs for Bush rounds-up conservative blogger reax to Roberts here. Among those sharing the skeptical view:
Dan Flynn at Flynn Files, who writes:
Republicans have tried the blank slate route before. That’s the Supreme Court pick whose opinions are unknown–perhaps even to himself. What did it get the GOP? David Souter, for one. President Bush has twice been elected president, and his party controls 55 Senate seats. If he really is a social conservative–let’s face it, this is all about Roe v. Wade–why should he operate from a position of weakness and nominate a consensus candidate? While Roberts is neither the consensus candidate nor 2005’s David Souter, his views on Roe v. Wade, at least, are unknown. Is a crapshoot the best conservatives can do? On the other hand, the Democrats refused to confirm him when George H.W. Bush nominated him to the bench, and took two years to confirm him when George W. Bush nominated him to the DC Court of Appeals. Perhaps the Democrats know something that we don’t. Time will tell.
Lawyer/blogger Beldar says he’s not worried.
Lawyer/blogger Feddie at Southern Appeal says Roberts is “a solid textualist/originalist.”
Paul at Power Line says Roberts is more like Rehnquist than Souter.
Roger L. Simon asks: Triangulation, anyone?