Roberts is no David Souter.
Well, that's not what his record in this and other cases says. I'm hoping you're right, but I should think we'd be doing more than hoping. We ought to know.
The "we ought to know" thing doesn't work for me. I don't think we need to know, as long as GWB does.
It comes down to whether you trust GWB enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.
If you don't trust his judgement, then you'll insist on knowing. If you trust him enough to give him the benefit of the doubt, then knowing is not necessary. I give GWB the benefit of the doubt because so far his appointments have with rare exceptions been an record of excellence, from chosing Chaney to be his VP, to Rumsfeld, to Rice, to Bolton, to Goss, to his federal circuit court nominees. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't nominate Roberts hoping Roberts would be the right guy, that he did it confident Roberts is the right guy.
I never had such faith in GB, which is why I wasn't really that surprised that someone he nominated turned out to be a Souter.
Cite to me then the cases that you maintain so something other than a constructionist record.
I defy you to find one. On the contrary, there is a plethora of information to support the notion that he is indeed a conservative jurist.
I, for one, am getting damn tired of people castigating this man as some sort of squish -- when there is a vast record stating otherwise.