Well... Bush nominated some guy named John Roberts. So what's my totally uninformed opinion?

Out of the Blue: Is it just me or did this guy come out of nowhere? I understand he was on a short list... but pretty much the only two people being talked about lately were Clement and Gonzalez. Not only that, but he's a white male, with a very plain sounding name. I don't know why, but I find this odd for Bush who has the most diverse administration in history.

Fill In the Blank: I titled the post this because that's how everyone is reacting right now. Everyone had their press releases ready to go before a name was announced, and just waited to fill in the blank. The left is calling him a hard liner who will overturn Roe, destroy the environment and do other random bad things. The right is heralding him as a thoughtful jurist and intellectual who is a fine choice. Make no mistake... no matter who got picked, both sides would have said the exact same thing.

Search for Reasons: From what I've read, most of the left are using cases he argued as a lawyer to show how he will be as a judge. I'm not so sure this is valid. He argued against abortion rights in front of SCOTUS for an anti-abortion administration yes, but that was his job as a lawyer for the government at the time. Saying that this defines him as anti-Roe is like saying that a defense attorney who defends murderers thinks that killing people is acceptable. In fact, not zealously working in your clients interests will get you disbarred. The fact is that he seems to be a relative unknown.

Final conclusion? Hell if I know... time to sit and wait for people to start digging up dirt... and believe me... everyone has a shovel. One final thought I had when I was reading a NY Times piece though. He was unanimously confirmed to his current Appeals Court position in 2003. Does that make it harder to oppose him strongly to the Supreme Court now?

Update: This is very interesting... apparently Sanda Day O'Connor is very enthusiastic about the choice:

Her first words were unequivocal: "That's fabulous!" she said. She immediately described John G. Roberts as a "brilliant legal mind, a straight shooter, articulate, and he should not have trouble being confirmed by October. He's good in every way, except he's not a woman."

Since so many on the left were saying that it would extremely important to select someone as "moderate" as O'Connor... does her ringing endorsement take the wind out of their sails? As far as not being a woman Sandra... I guess we all can't be perfect. More on this from Volokh Conspiracy and How Appealing.

Update II: Hmmm... according to Drudge and Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter is pissed:

We don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever... Oh, yeah...we know he's argued cases before the supreme court. big deal; so has Larry Flynt's attorney.

This guy is looking better and better to me now. Anyone who pisses off Ann Coulter can't be all that bad. I've never specifically blogged about my dislike for her... but I've mentioned it here and here before. She has great legs and is very easy on the eyes... but way to hard on the ears and brain.