So, basically, he is doing opposite of what Souter did?
Thats a good thing in my book.
No, he's doing exactly what Souter did. Souter was picked precisely for the lack of a substantial record and he apparently assured the White House during interviews that he was either a conservative or an originalist. He was neither. While it may just as well be true that Judge Roberts is, in fact, an originalist and just lacks a substantial record, it could just as easily be true that he's not. That's the point. We just don't know. If it turns out that he is, in point of fact, an originalist, no one will be happier than I will. But I think that appointments to the Supreme Court should be based on an actual record of decisions rather than assurances of the President and various "conservative" groups that he's "our kind of guy". We got those assurances with Souter and look what we ended up with. And it's not as if there weren't choices out there who are avowed originalists willing to stand up for their belief in that judicial philosophy. And to those who would say "well, I've got sources in the know who have assured me that Judge Roberts is a conservative or an originalist", just think back over the last 24 hours. How many posts did we read from people in the know assuring us that the nominee was Judge Clement or Judge Alito or Judge McConnell or Judge Edith Jones, and so on and so on and so on. I am all for gambling, but I'd like a little better odds than someone's personal assurances that a certain person believes in a certain way, especially when we're gambling with a lifetime appointment (which in this case could amount to 30 years or more) to a body capable of overturning acts of the Legislature elected by the People. While no pick would be certain, someone with a substantial record to look at and decide wouldn't be better. The point of this article and the point of many posts in the last few weeks arguing against a safe choice boil down to the position that we don't need a stealth candidate. An originalist interpretation of the Constitution is a valid judicial philosophy and can be defended against attack. It is the same with conservative political philosophy. If your position is grounded in logic, you can defend it. You don't need to pretend to be something you're not in the hopes that you'll slip under tha radar so you can work your true agenda later. That is the strategy of liberals, um, progessives, um...whatever they are calling themselves this week so that we don't call them socialists.