jayeff

I have tended to assume that the Democrats will put up a reasonable fight over this appointment and that at least 1 or 2 candidates will be burned in the process. Thus I only thought it might be a remote possibility that Roberts would be appointed, regardless of his record and so I hadn't planned to read up on him unless that looked like changing.

But okay, you summarized 3 of his judgements and based on these alone, I don't share your concerns. In the first case in particular he rendered a solid judgement based on the law. And that is his job. He can't rewrite the law just because, as he apparently said, ?no one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation?. His own success or failure as a parent is irrelevant.

I don't have any problem with the other two decisions.

Having read a little beyond your posting, what does concern me is that he seems to have been picked and groomed for a role like this long before there were any obvious (to the public) reasons for making that choice. But then again, isn't it predictable that Bush will look to appoint someone from his own "court", just as any other President from either party would in similar circumstances. I suspect Roberts is a long way from the worst appointee we could get.