Looks like he will be the President’s nominee. From what I’ve read of his credentials tonight, itsounds like he is a good, solid choice.
Update: The San-Diego Union Tribune confirms.
Flashback: Back on July 5th, Erick at Red State wrote a post about John Roberts, which he titled “John Roberts Rising”:
Judge John Roberts’s name has floated towards the top of the list. The President knows Judge Roberts and feels comfortable with him. Also, with several significant cases involving the government headed to the Supreme Court in the next year, one source very close to the White House suggests that Judge Roberts name is being given active consideration.
He went on to say:
Notably, Judge Roberts got out of committee in 2003 on a 16-3 vote, which is very strong. He was confirmed to the Court of Appeals by the Senate on May 8, 2003, after several years of Democrat obstruction, but, once to the floor, made it through without significant Democrat obstruction.
Right now, both lefty activist groups and certain White House staffers are turning their eyes toward John Roberts.
Looks like he was on to something.
2nd Update: From the Washington Post:
Roberts spent more time practicing law in Washington, where he has networked with many Democrats. When Roberts was nominated for the D.C. Circuit in 2003, Clinton’s former solicitor general, Seth P. Waxman, called Roberts an “exceptionally well-qualified appellate advocate.”
“He is a Washington lawyer, a conservative, not an ideologue,” said Stuart H. Newberger, a lawyer and self-described liberal Democrat who has argued cases against Roberts.
He put in his time advising the Bush legal team in Florida during the battle over the 2000 presidential election and has often argued conservative positions before the court — but they can be attributed to clients, not necessarily to him.
That includes a brief he wrote for President George H.W. Bush’s administration in a 1991 abortion case, in which he observed that “we continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled.”
Roberts won the case — Rust v. Sullivan — in which the Supreme Court agreed with the administration that the government could require doctors and clinics receiving federal funds to avoid talking to patients about abortion.
Hmmm … me wonders if the Prez is going to have a battle on his hands with this one.
9:14 p.m. update: Sen. Chuck Schumer is questioning Roberts ability to serve on the Court already (live on Fox). Claims Roberts (in a past confirmation hearing for a lower court) didn’t answer all questions asked of him. Schumer voted against him at that time (source: Brit Hume – Fox News) along with two other Senators.
9:17 p.m.: Fox is reporting a statement from Sen. Dick Durbin which he states that the President has chosen a “controversial nominee” and thus the confirmation process will be tougher. Uh huh. Surprise surprise. Carl Cameron is reporting that Republicans are hoping the ‘Ginsburg rule’ is applied with Roberts nomination, meaning that Roberts shouldn’t have to answer certain questions, as Clinton nominee Ginsburg refused to answer a few of her own but nevertheless was confirmed.
Latest blogosphere comments: From Wizbang. Patterico says: “Let the dishonest attacks begin.” Joe Gandelman says: “Score one for the base.” John Hawkins thinks: ” This is a good day for conservatism my friends, a very good day…” (I’m inclined to agree).
Late evening update: The Associated Press has a rundown of reactions to Roberts’ nomination.
My final comment on this for the evening: The reaction in the conservative blogosphere seems to be one of optimism over this choice, and I join in that optimism. As I stated earlier, his credentials are solid and not only that, but he doesn’t come across as a moderate or extremist. I hope his confirmation process goes smoothly but I won’t hold my breath.