[newgeezer]

What is his stance on the rest of the Constitution?

I'm asking the same thing. The seemingly unanimous praise from all corners of FR makes me wonder if we're missing something. No more Souters, please.

[Dead Corpse]

So far, the cases I've read that he has argued definately puts him closer to Renquist. However, I was hoping for another Thomas. I'll take what I can get on other issues as long as the guy is solid on "shall not be infringed".

[Martin Tell]

No more Souters, please.

Souter is a lightweight, and as an outsider lacked the strength of character or intellect to resist the pressure to "evolve" as a justice.

None of these traits apply to Roberts. He has solid character, a brilliant mind, is firmly grounded in his religion, legal philosophy, and family, and has lived in Washington for many years.

I am unconcerned that Roberts is a Souter or that he will "evolve" while on the bench.

[Russ]

Maybe he views the constitution as one document and not pieces where one section is viewed differently than another. Would anyone really expect him to go before the Judiciary Committee and tell them that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned? That would be suicide. He, nor any other conservative candidate for the Supreme Court, would be that foolish. We will just have to wait for his first vote on the issue to see his real position.

As we have seen many times there are no guarantees when it comes to picking a Justice. I think Bush did the best we could hope for. The rest is up to Roberts.