The point is there is nothing in post 86 that proves he is a rock solid conservative, so we don't know. Why not appoint a sure thing, like Luttig. I like to think he is, but all we have is positions he's taken in legal briefs, which mean NOTHING. In my legal career, I have written some pretty strong language in briefs advocating positions I personally disagreed with.
Their are no "sure things" especially when discussing judges. What I have seen in his previous arguments and rulings is a man who interprets the law in a narrow and uncompromising fashion. From every indication Roberts does not legislate from the bench and personally abhors those who do.He appears to be a classic jurist in the mold of William Rehnquist.He has a tremendous amount of support from rock sold conservatives like Starr, Hewitt, Meese, Levin,Malkin, the Christian right etc etc. Are all these people wrong and Ann is the only one who sees the truth?
Um, Luttig voted against Bush in the WOT.
Roberts voted for the WOT recently.
So, just how is Luttig a "sure thing"?