LATIMES Editorial) A judicious choice

[papau]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-supreme20jul20,0,946649.story?track=tottext

EDITORIALS
A judicious choice

July 20, 2005

By all accounts, John G. Roberts Jr. is a likable guy. His list of friends and supporters, brandished by President Bush on Tuesday as he announced Roberts as his nominee for the Supreme Court, stands at 156 and counting, spanning the ideological spectrum, with a litany of adjectives that would make any mother (or president for that matter) proud.

Whether Roberts is the right choice for the court is another question. Although some liberal interest groups rushed to portray Roberts as a dangerous extremist, his nomination seems to signal a desire on the part of the White House to avoid a nasty confirmation battle. Given that Bush passed over some of the more extreme conservatives who'd been mentioned as candidates, we may yet witness a civil debate about the Supreme Court, and the president will deserve some credit if we do. In any event, Bush was right Tuesday to insist that the Senate act on his nomination before the court reconvenes in October.

Roberts is a shrewd choice for many reasons, but perhaps his most important characteristic is a near-ideal mixture of familiarity and inscrutability. He has a sterling record in Washington as a litigator, appearing before the Supreme Court 39 times over more than a decade, and few he has encountered have anything bad to say about him; even legal adversaries such as Walter Dellinger, a solicitor general in the Clinton administration, praise him.

At the same time, his relatively sparse judicial record — he has only been on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since June 2003 — makes it difficult for opponents to build a case against him. <snip>

[Lindacooks]

1. This statement cuts both ways:

At the same time, his relatively sparse judicial record — he has only been on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since June 2003 — makes it difficult for opponents to build a case against him.

Being against him, his 'relatively sparse' judicial record tells me he doesn't have enough experience to be part of SCOTUS.