It's interesting to watch the conservative sentiment on Roberts change by the day. One day, he's a RINO. Next day, he's a true conservative. The truth is that you can't tell. Only Bush knows for sure. So it comes down to a question of whether you trust Bush.
And if you do not, then you should not have voted for him. He's making the decision.
I doubt it. No one knows how Roberts will turn out. I, personally, take a cautiously pessimistic view of the nomination. As our own immortal Ann Coulter wrote: "But unfortunately...we don't know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever." (emphasis mine).
If its true that former RINO Senator Rudman knew Souter was a liberal, and then deceived John Sununu, who in turn innocently mislead Bush the Elder about this 'slam dunk' for conservatives, then who knows what Bush the Younger really knows about Roberts. Maybe he too has been mislead by people in his administration.
Didn't Roberts say that Bush did not interview him with specific questions? Let's hope that Bush wasn't won over solely by promises not to legislate from the bench, and not to be an activist, because in their twisted minds I'm sure Ginsberg and Stevens don't think they are activists.
I will nonetheless give Bush the benefit of the doubt, and assume that Bush chose Roberts with the firm belief that Roberts does fit the mold of a Scalia or Thomas, just as he promised in 2000 and 2004.
I do hope, however, that next time Bush goes for someone with a more reliable paper trail, so as to lessen the suspense (though obviously it can never be done away with completely until they start issuing decision and votes), and hopefully to intentionally engage the Left in a debate about the proper role of the judiciary.