[Ol' Sparky]

I do know that Roberts donated his time to gay rights activists. I also know that there is no evidence that he supports Roe vs. Wade being overturned. He is a maybe, not a sure thing. And, he is now replacing one of the three originalists on the court.

Further, we'll be asked to accept yet another maybe to replace O'Connor.

It's very possible the court will remain unchanged after both appointments or made or even move to the left with Roberts not being as conservative as Rehnquist and the next nominee being no better than O'Connor.

There is no good reason for one of these two appointments not to be a verifiable originalist in the Scalia mold. Yet, conservatives continue to let Bush and the Republicans do what is politically expedient rather than what they promised to do.

[Congressman Billybob]

No, Roberts did NOT "donate his time to gay activists." He spent several hours, as head of the Appellate Division of his law firm, talking to an associate lawyer in his firm who had the Colorado referendum case, which is a far cry from the Massachusetts homosexual marriage case.

Furthermore, Roberts may (I haven't seen confirmation of this) have played the role of Justice Scalia in a mock Supreme Court session on that case. Either talking with a subordinate or playing Scalia would not constitute helping gay activists.

And it seems like you are unaware of Chief Justice Rehnquist's position in the last case when Roe v. Wade was reconsidered. If you were, you would know to a certainty that Roberts will be equal to, or better than, Rehnquist on this precise subject.

As Mark Twain said, your reluctance about Roberts indicates that "you are getting drunk on the smell of someone else's cork."

John / Billybob