"He doesn't sound like that much of a strict constitutional-originalist, certainly not like Scalia or Thomas."
You're confusing his role as an advocate with his role as a judge. As an advocate he used every argument available to represent his client. His judicial philosophy has thus far shown him to be the kind of judge we would both want, in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.
"...."Walter A. Smith, the attorney in charge of pro bono work at Hogan & Hartson from 1993 to 1997, who worked with Roberts on the Romer case, said Roberts expressed no hesitation at taking the case. He jumped at the opportunity."
Sounds like eagerness to me!"
I bet you don't usually swallow whole MSM bilge like this, why are you doing it now? First, consider the source, the LA Times. Now look at the quote. It doesn't say what Smith said, it "characterizes" it. There's no actual quote from Smith.
This is the kind of lame MSM balderdash we usually eat for breakfast on FR. Why not now?
Because it doesn't fit the current bash-Bush mob.
It's incredible how you are able to deduce Robert's judicial philosophy in such precise terms in the mold of Scalia and Thomas when nearly everyone else is uncertain as to what that judicial philosophy is. So far I have heard no one proclaim that Roberts is in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. Maybe Rehnquist but that's as far as one could stretch it. So far Roberts has shown himself to be a legalistic advocate Pro Bono for the first major Gay Agenda SCOTUS ruling (Romer vs Evan) which is now being used to strike down other states marriage amendments....more importantly this SCOTUS ruling is one more example of judicial activism at its worst. And Roberts EAGERLY took this assignment! And why would his role as an advocate differ so significantly from his role and judicial philosophy as a judge? His judicial philosophy is shaped and formulated by his advocacy as a lawyer. He has repeatedly expressed his belief that Roe vs Wade is settled law, and that he is committed to upholding precedence in his discussions with the Dims Schumer and Durbin. He is making these comments to appease the left wing lunies.
Secondly we must be reading a different article.... "Walter A. Smith, the attorney in charge of pro bono work at Hogan & Hartson from 1993 to 1997, who worked with Roberts on the Romer case, said Roberts expressed no hesitation at taking the case. He jumped at the opportunity.
"Every good lawyer knows that if there is something in his client's cause that so personally offends you, morally, religiously, if it offends you that you think it would undermine your ability to do your duty as a lawyer, then you shouldn't take it on, and John wouldn't have," he said. "So at a minimum, he had no concerns that would rise to that level."
This does not appear to represent Roberts eagerness as "characterized by".
The bottom line is, I hope you're right and I'm wrong, for the sake of the country. Unfortunately the track record for GOP SCOTUS nominees that have some uncertainty or questions re. their judicial philosophy or their views, have ALWAYS broken firmly to the left since the days of Earl Warren appointed by Dwight Eisenhower.
Bush had every opportunity to name a principled conservative for SCOTUS nominee but he didn't because he has feet of clay when it comes to confronting the DemonRATS left wing lunacy.... and because I believe that Bush himself is a closet moderate at best, and Roberts will mirror that swing moderate stance. I think that Roberts will be a conservative on big business and a liberal on abortion - gay agenda advancement - restrictive on 10 commandments - social & cultural issues - death penalty. In short Roberts will break left once he is confirmed. I hope I'm wrong and you're right!