What to think about Roberts

James Balkin in Newsday: A nominee after Bush's own heart:

The most dangerous issue is presidential power. Bush has pushed the constitutional envelope, throwing U.S. citizens in military prisons without hearings, and demanding the right to search without judicial warrants. His lawyers claim Congress can't interfere with his interrogation practices, even if cruel, inhuman and degrading.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and courts are one of the few institutions with an interest in preserving the rule of law from an overreaching executive. Don't expect Roberts to stand up to Bush. Roberts will support the president.

And that's exactly why Bush chose him.

Here's John Yoo (yes, THAT John Yoo) in the Washington Post:

Confirming Roberts could also be the first step in bringing consensus to the Supreme Court itself. In his few opinions, Roberts has displayed a noteworthy deference to the elected branches of government on matters of policy. In what is becoming known as the "french fry" case, Roberts (a father of two young children) did not allow his clear personal feelings to get in the way of upholding a valid regulation prohibiting eating on Washington's Metro, even though it resulted in the arrest of a 12-year-old girl for eating a single french fry. Last week, Roberts was a member of a unanimous panel of the D.C. Circuit that accepted Bush's decision to use special military courts to try Osama bin Laden's driver and bodyguard, and that refused to second-guess Bush's decision that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the war against al Qaeda. No doubt critics of these decisions would have preferred different rulings, but Roberts understood that those choices are up to the president and Congress, not the unelected courts.

E.J. Dionne, also in the Post:

Anyone who doubts that Roberts will be a consistent conservative vote on the court should examine the avalanche of endorsements that immediately fell his way from right-of-center groups. Brian Fahling of the American Family Association's Center for Law and Policy called Roberts an excellent choice. The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, said the nomination of Roberts provided "an unparalleled opportunity to restore the proper role of the Supreme Court." Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice called the nomination "great news."

These gentlemen are not "squishes," to use the popular right-wing word for conservative sellouts. They care passionately about moving the court to the right. If they think Roberts will do that, the rest of us should pay attention.

There's nothing we can do about Roberts, unfortunately, except to gird our loins for a long battle to retrieve and retain our civil rights. The third branch of government is about to fall into the hands of men who believe the President has the right to order torture, to detain American citizens indefinitely without trial (all of America is a battlefield, after all!), and, basically, to do whatever he damn well pleases if he can lie and say it's related to the GWOT.