Not to be argumentative, but what was bombastic about Coulter's column on Roberts?
She said he did have much of a track record to go on. She said that in the past, GOP picks have turned out different from their expectations.
Both of these things seem to be pretty undeniably true. Where's the bombast?
I disagree in that Roberts has a long track record as an attorney - and his wife is quite active in pro-life causes.
He's nowhere near the cipher that Souter represented. And for all the talk of Souter, Bush the Elder also nominated another judge with a minimal history. A certain gent named Clarence Thomas who has turned out quite nicely.