Cautiously I wade into this territory. So little we know for sure, though all signs are encouraging.
I am very optimistic about a Justice Roberts, and if indeed he turns out to be faithful to the Constitution, then this will be a brilliant pick by the President.
By all accounts, he will stand up for life. We don't know this 100%, which is uncomfortable, but all the signs are good.
First of all, his wife was active in Feminists For Life. I'm with Jill Stanek - it would be a hard for somebody so actively pro-life to be married to somebody who didn't share her views.
Additionally, he has been described as a faithful - even a "traditional" - Catholic. His two children are adopted. These are all good signs.
Politically, the main reason I feel good about him is that Bush and Rove should darn well know better than to put another pro-choice Catholic on the Supreme Court. Many otherwise liberal Catholics hold a weak allegiance to the Republican party based primarily on seeing in them the best hope of reversing the national tragedy that is Roe v. Wade.
Rove (the demographics guru) knows that the Catholics are trending Republican precisely on this issue, despite being against the Presidents foreign policy. If Roberts is everything he appears to be, they will stay Republican. If Bush fails on this nomination and adds insult to injury by giving us another Kennedy, the Republicans will lose the Catholic vote in '06 and '08.
Bush may not be overly concerned with his legacy, but if he wants the '07-'08 Congress to have more R's than D's, Roberts better come through. And for all the assaults on Bush's intellect, we know that one area where he is as sharp as anybody is political strategery.
If Roberts falls through, and Catholics see that they cannot count on the Republicans to protect life, then they will walk. Bush knows this, Karl Rove knows this. This makes me feel very optimistic about Roberts.
There are reasons to worry. I personally am a bit skittish with the fact that Roberts made his bread and butter for years as a corporate lawyer. And the fact of the matter is, we don't know if he is pro-life or not.
Aside fom all of that, the boys at Southern Appeal seem to be pretty psyched about Roberts. For what it's worth, I'll take their vote of confidence over Ann Coulter's hatred of Roberts for representing a welfare mother free of charge anyday.
By the way, see Southern Appeal for tons of great coverage on Roberts.
"Many otherwise liberal Catholics hold a weak allegiance to the Republican party based primarily on seeing in them the best hope of reversing the national tragedy that is Roe v. Wade."
How I wish more people on the "Left" understood this. There's an article in a back issue of Touchstone I should copy for you; it's perhaps the most insightful analysis of the intersection of religion and politics in modern America that I've seen in a while.
I don't know much about Ann Coulter, but knowing that she's a neoconservative is almost enough for me. ;) For myself, I think it's time that the paleoconservatives (which is perhaps the political bent I'm closest to, although even then it doesn't fit completely) asserted their rights to the inheritance of conservativism.
I also don't know much about John Roberts. I'm therefore going to withhold both cheers and jeers and pray that the right man, whoever he is, is appointed.
I honestly have never read much Coulter, either. What I have read is more venom than reason. Limbaugh in stilettos.
Hmm...after reading Joseph Bottum's recent piece in First Things, I may have to disavow the "paleoconservative" label. Apparently in some quarters it means "I follow Pat Buchanan," and I definitely DON'T follow him.
LOL. You sure, Nick? I always saw a Buchananish streak in you...
j/k