It's always a risk, but Roberts appears to be a very low risk for turning lib once named to SCOTUS. I think the prez has chosen well.
Roberts will end up more or less as conservative as Rhenquist. At worse he'll be a pro-life, male version of O'Connor and at best a muted Scalia.
I'm afraid I'm less optimistic. I tend to believe that we're given record-free social libertarians on purpose by the GOP - people who won't rattle the cage on issues like abortion, et al.
I'd also be willing to bet he's a "personal pro-lifer" who'll uphold Roe. We have nothing to suggest otherwise that Roberts is willing to take personal ownership of.
I pray to God almighty that I'm wrong.
I think it's safe to say he will be no Souter. But beyond that, CK is correct in saying the record is thin. I'm comforted that Jay Sekulow of ACLJ strongly supports Roberts, but I'm still a bit nervous.
I couldn't agree more. Roe V Wade being directly revisited could turn into a disaster. The more likely and IMO effective means would be to make it crumble by attacking it through various components. I say go after PBA first, maybe as cruel and unusual? That is essentially how most bad precedent will need to be overturned.
One thing that needs to happen IMO to overturn these poorly decided social issue opinions is to attack the "science" that is used for the basis of many of these horrible opinions as suspect at best. They must use other studies showing the opposite effects, not as as a bases for their opinions but to counteract the ability of the progressives to base their decisions soley on such baloney.
Another interesting issue associated with pick
President Bush's selection to replace Roberts. Its potentially another solid Constitutionalist in the system.