I've been on the fence about Roberts from the beginning. Thanks to Occam's Razor, I've learned in the last five years not to trust anything the Bush administration says, but I've kept as open a mind as possible about a jurist who is certainly to be at odds with most of my ideals.
But that's America, and when 51% of us voted to re-elect the worst president in history, we all knew that we'd end up with at least one conservative justice on the Supreme Court.
My biggest problem with Roberts to this point has been his lack of experience at the Federal level. I just don't think two years of practice qualifies someone for a lifetime appointment. However, I did keep as open a mind as I possibly could. Really, I did. Even when he seemed to weasel out of some very important questions, and gave answers that even Arlen Specter admitted were misleading.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I believe that honesty, integrity, and consistency are very important qualities for a judge, especially a judge who may sit on the Supreme Court.
But even more important than that, even more important than Roe, or Casey, or stare decisis, is a fundamental understanding of the First Amendment.
Today, Judge Roberts admitted that he doesn't have a clear and fundemantal understanding of First Amendment precedent:
In a third day of questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee, John Roberts admitted that he was not "up to speed" on First Amendment precedents.
In an exchange on First Amendments issues with Senator Patrick Leahy, a leading Democrat, Roberts revealed, "Senator, I haven't dealt with a lot of First Amendment access cases." The only one he could cite had to do with media access to prisons. He also said he was "not terribly familiar with the precise legal standards or how they have developed" recently.
His entire answer is very slippery, especially since the question, from Senator Lehey, was framed around the secrecy of the Bush Administration, and White House efforts to block media access to information that the public has a right to know.
The First Amendment is just about as important as they get. If he isn't "up to speed" on it, I don't believe he's qualified to serve, and must not be confirmed.