Roberts

The great British magazine The Economist has an article about John Roberts in their Sept. 15, 2005 print edition [Update:  Here's the link; subscription required]:

The nominee pleases almost everybody

One of the surest ways to guarantee high drama in Washington is to nominate a conservative to the Supreme Court.  In 1987, Robert Bork's confirmation hearings gave the world a new word--"Borking".  In 1991, Clarence Thomas complained of an "electronic lynching".  John Roberts is a candidate not just for a seat on the court but for chief justice.  But his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee was about as dramatic as a kabuki play.

The Democrats tried their best to reveal the fanatic behind Mr Roberts's butter-wouldn't-melt exterior.  They grilled him about his views on the right to privacy (ie, abortion).  They reminded him of memos that he had written as a young lawyer for the Reagan administration--particularly one in which he talked of the "so-called" right to privacy.  Arlen Specter, a rare pro-choice Republican, held up a huge sign to illustrate that Roe v Wade is not just a precedent but a "super-duper precedent".  Ted Kennedy gave his usual impression of an about-to-explode volcano.

But Mr Roberts--alarmingly similar to Perfect Peter in the "Horrid Henry" books--remained preternaturally composed.  He even brought his perfect family along with him, his son wearing a bow tie and his daughter with a huge bow in her hair.  Facing his inquisitors, he hit all the right notes.  Judges should be modest, he said (a signal to conservatives that he doesn't believe in judicial activism).  But they should also believe in precedent (a signal to liberals that he won't take a scythe to activist decisions).

He made skilful use of the Ruth Bader Ginsburg gambit--refusing to answer questions on specific subjects that might come before him on the bench.  He also handled the abortion issue well.  He made enough conciliatory comments on the right to privacy and the importance of respecting precedents to allow centrist Democrats to vote "aye".  He also insisted that there is nothing wrong with judges changing their minds.  But he avoided a right-wing backlash by refusing to say whether the right to privacy extends to abortion.

Russ Feingold, a Democratic senator, forcefully pointed out that "this is a confirmation proceeding, not a coronation".  But a coronation was what it looked like.