Well, add Ann Coulter to the list of conservatives less than thrilled with the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court.  From “Souter in Roberts Clothing”:

After pretending to consider various women and minorities for the Supreme Court these past few weeks, President Bush decided to disappoint all the groups he had just ginned up and nominate a white male.

[…] But unfortunately, other than that that, we don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever.

[…] It means absolutely nothing that NARAL and Planned Parenthood attack him: They also attacked Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Hackett Souter.

[…] And it makes no difference that conservatives in the White House are assuring us Roberts can be trusted. We got the exact same assurances from officials working for the last president Bush about David Hackett Souter.

[…] Finally, lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural.

[…] If the Senate were in Democrat hands, Roberts would be perfect. But why on earth would Bush waste a nomination on a person who is a complete blank slate when we have a majority in the Senate!

[…] The Democrats’ own polls showed voters are no longer fooled by claims that the Democrats are trying to block “judges who would roll back civil rights.” Borking is over.

And Bush responds by nominating a candidate who will allow Democrats to avoid fighting on their weakest ground – substance. He has given us a Supreme Court nomination that will placate no liberals and should please no conservatives.

Maybe Roberts will contravene the sordid history of “stealth nominees” and be the Scalia or Thomas Bush promised us when he was asking for our votes. Or maybe he won’t. The Supreme Court shouldn’t be a game of Russian roulette.

No, it shouldn’t.  But neither should it be a superlegislature.  And, as Beldar correctly pointed out yesterday, what should be foremost in the minds of conservatives who claim to respect the Court is seating a justice who understands his role is to apply the law and interpret the Constitution, while respecting the separation of powers and the role of the states and their legislatures in a democratic republic—something that Roberts’ Circuit Court of Appeals decisions seem to bear out.¹

I understand that some conservatives would’ve preferred the President nominate a so-called “movement” conservative. But let’s face it:  it is difficult to complain about Chuck Schumer’s absurd insistence that a nominee pre-litigate every potential case when you yourself are transparently pining for that nominee to provide a list of partisan assurances that he’ll rule your way politically.

Let’s leave that kind of politicization of the Court to the Democrats and their media proxies.  And trust that the President has done his homework.

¹ this, however, could throw that assessment into doubt.  See also, Randy Barnett, and Beldar’s reply; and the Supreme Court Nomination Blog.

****

update:  nice roundup of links and analyses here.

****

update 2:  And yes, I admit to finding this a bit disturbing.

****

update 3:  Good post here, at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.  And sure, Ed might very well consider my response to Coulter larded with the kind of “empty platitudes” he so distrusts, but what the heck—I’m a giver!