Let me endorse Markos' post below on evaluating Judge John Roberts' fitness for the Supreme Court, with some qualifications. As I understand his point, Robert's record as an attorney is impressive intellectually. Clearly, the intellectual firepower is not lacking.
The causes and positions he advocated certainly provide for many questions and requests for information. How Roberts answers those questions and what information surfaces regarding his views will go a long way towards giving us a better understanding of what Roberts thinks about the positions he advocated as a lawyer. But this is not enough.
A week ago, I discussed the Right Wing's insistence that the potential nominees, and Roberts in particular, were not a threat to Roe. Their position? He was just doing his job as a lawyer. Well, that may be, but Roberts needs to explain himself on that.
In any event, like Markos, I must say that his short stint on the DC Circuit provides little guidance for what a Justice Roberts would be like. Hence, if we don't give great weight to his history as a lawyer, and understand that he has virtually no history as a Judge, the Senate MUST be provided with complete and honest answers to important questions about Roberts' judicial philosophy, temperament and specific views on important legal issues.
In that sense, I believe Professor Bruce Ackerman points to some important issues that Roberts must address in a full and frank manner.
I have some additional thoughts in extended.
Update [2005-7-20 0:21:31 by Armando]: Jeralyn Merritt has a similar take.
I would add the following issues that Roberts must address:
Roe. Judge Roberts must provide guidance on his views of Roe v. Wade. This is critical. This is a case of over 30 year vintage, reaffirmed by the SCOTUS in 1992. It is settled law. Roberts must confirm expressly that he accepts that Roe is the settled law of the land.
The Commerce Power. Judge Roberts must expressly reject the radical views of the "Constitution in Exile" school, best exemplified by the views of Janice Rogers Brown. We can not allow the turning back of the clock to 1937.
Partisanship. Judge Roberts has a long history as a partisan Republican lawyer. As recently as the Bush v. Gore case, Roberts was a Republican hired gun. Can he leave that behind? Does he have the temperament to be a Justice for all the country, not just for the GOP?
Documents. Listening to NPR this evening, it was reported that Roberts and the Bush Administration refused to provide all the documents requested by the Senate Judiciary Committee during his Circuit Court nomination hearings. That is simply unacceptable. Roberts and the White House must be fully forthcoming and provide ALL information requested. After that, THEN Democrats will be in a position to determine where they stand on Roberts. There must be no Republican stonewalling. Leave that to Rove.
And speaking of Rove, what did the President know and when did he know it? Day 10 of Rove-gate and the White House continues to stonewall. That story, and the Special Prosecutor, are not going away.