Exactly right...although very few people mention this...we have no idea how John Roberts will come out on the big constititional issues of the scope of the Commerce Clause...federalism and the 10th Amendment...the existence or extent of the "privacy right"...the delegation doctrine, etc., etc.
If he turns out to be a Justice who ignores the 10th Amendment and favors an expansive reading of the Commerce Clause and an ambiguous, undefined privacy right...will conservatives still be talking about how brilliant he is?
Having said that, I was disappointed in the "stealth trategy" that seemed to form the decision to nominate him.
Clinton brazenly said he would nominate pro-abortion, activist judges - and he did. Why is it that Republican presidents are terrified to do the same when it comes to Supreme Court nominations?
We have some basis for our views on Roberts. First of all, he had some record as a justice. He also had writings.
And last, we KNOW he understands the constitution, and can speak about it with authority. Therefore, when he says how he will interpret the constitution, we know at least that he KNOWS what it means to do so.
We don't know that with Miers. She might say she is a strict constructionist, and think that means there is a right to proportional representation in the 14th amendment.