John Roberts for Chief Justice
Now that the New York Times and Washington Post are coming out with positions on Roberts (Times no, Post yes) I figured I might as well.

It seems to me that there are two grounds to oppose a would-be justice: personality and policy.

On personality, Roberts is a winner. From what I've read, even pretty liberal commentators seem to think he's pretty well qualified.* The only negative is the vagueness of his testimony in confirmative hearings- and I think that is probably true of most judicial nominees.

On policy, you could do worse, whether you're on the Left or the Right.

Liberals should support Roberts because if he was struck by lightning tomorrow, Bush might nominate someone more right-wing, someone like Janice Rogers Brown.

Why, then, should conservatives** support Roberts? Because even from their perspective, Bush could do worse. If Roberts were struck by lightning tomorrow, Bush might nominate Harvie Wilkinson (probably more moderate) or Alberto Gonzalez (possibly more moderate, definitely less qualified).

Roberts is undeniably something of a stealth candidate. His paper trail is mostly memos from the early 80s, a time when lots of young conservatives had radical ideas. I'm not sure that what he said then has much predictive value.

*Yes, I know I should post links. But I'm too lazy.
**Which side am I on? A little of both.