The smart money is on Edith Brown Clement.*
****
update: another guess.
****
update: John Roberts will be the President’s nominee. Expect a bit of a battle.
more: Jonathan Adler calls Roberts “close to the Platonic ideal of what a Supreme Court nominee should be” (via IP). Harry Reid is not quite so sanguine. And the National Journal had this to say of Roberts: “John Roberts seems a good bet to be the kind of judge we should all want to have  all of us, that is, who are looking less for congenial ideologues than for professionals committed to the impartial application of the law” (via Bench Memos).
****
update 2: Some background, from the Washington Post (via Drudge).
****
update 3: The Kossacks react.
****
update 4: Durbin and Schumer are already making the kind of whiny noises one expected them to make when Bush didn’t nominate Patricia Ireland.
And, via Confederate Yankee, we find the the DU kids are equally as discomfitted.
more: Great roundup from Glenn here, which includes this note that Lieberman put Roberts forth as a compromise candidate. See also, SCOTUSblog, for a complete profile.
****
update 5: Hugh Hewitt is running an extended show to discuss the Roberts’ nomination. His thoughts here. And Tall Dave chimes in. See also, Beldar — who, in hightlighting the french fry ruling (Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority), points to the kind of Justice Roberts is likely to be.
****
update 6: Another great roundup from Michelle Malkin. And Powerline asks, “How Will They Attack Roberts?” More here.
****
update 7: Mark Levin, writing at Bench Memos, quips, “I understand Dick Durbin’s original draft statement accused Roberts of being Pol Pot’s lawyer.”
****
update 8: Is Lieberman backtracking? No worries. That’s why God invented the constitutional option. Right Senator McCain?
Hello…?
(h/t Bench Memos)
****
update 9: Matt Margolis at Blogs for Bush has a big blog round-up. Yours truly, who has yet to establish his conservative bona fides to the satisfaction of certain rightwing gatekeepers, is, however, sadly absent—though he does hold out hope that the box of assorted smoked cheeses he sent Sean Hannity will ultimately earn him some GOP props.
****
update 10: Ace weighs in. And TLB has the definitive round-up—though sadly, yours truly appears to be absent from that one, as well.
Question for the blogosphere: Who does a guy have to bang to get included in a roundup these days?
****
update 11: Jeralyn Merritt, TalkLeft:
I think it’s too soon to start opposing Judge John G. Roberts. Most of us knew nothing about him before tonight. He’s only been a Judge for two years. Before that he was deputy solicitor general. The legal arguments he made while working for the Government or as a corporate lawyer may or may not reflect his personal values, or how he would rule as a Supreme Court Justice.
I’d like to know more about him before I make up my mind. I don’t think it helps that liberal groups are coming out swinging so soon. It has the appearance that they would oppose anyone Bush would nominate.
It’s obvious we’re going to get a conservative Supreme Court nominee. Bush is President and the Senate is Republican-dominated. For now, I’m just happy it wasn’t a rabid right-winger like Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, Edith Jones (not to be confused with Edith Clement, who probably would have been okay,) Ted Olson or one of the Fourth Circuit judges that were reportedly under consideration.
Well, then. That was rather sensible.
Whereas this…
****
update 12: Annika describes the narrative she believes the left will follow.
BECAUSE ABU GHRAIB AND JEFF GANNON’S GAYPORNCOCKOFLIES!
****
update 13: Dave Johnston has a great roundup of leftwing reaction.
****
update 14: A few more Robert’s-related quicklinks: If you missed Roberts’ primetime introduction last evening, Political Teen has the video of Roberts’ statement here; and here are two links sent to me by Doug Stewart at Literal Barrage.
And finally, Bill INDC proves once again that the only thing “conservative” about him is his taste in hookers, whom for some reason he directs to carry parasols and wear girdles and those big hoop skirts.
My money is on Giacomo. No one saw that sonofabitch coming at the Kentucky Derby. Nosiree…
I happen to know Judge Clement.
She’s one of the good guys.
Me?
I want a hangin’ judge.
It’s Bork. Yep. Tan, rested…ready.
Imagine the looks on the faces of the dems? Priceless. The dead air as stunned news babes and blow dried stuffed shirts on the cable news nets tried to recover what passes for “wits” on the tube? Oh God, I would start a movement to allow Bush to run for a third term if he did that.
Teddy K’s eye would never stop twitching after an announcement like that.
So it won’t be Ann Althouse? Professor Reynolds will be crushed…
And I am still steamed that I wasn’t asked either.
I don’t know much about Roberts, but the KosKids are soiling themselves right now and that is always a pleasure to see.
Well, dang. I had my fingers crossed for Ben Stein.
Damn. The guy’s 50 years old. If he has good health he could be a Supreme for thirty years or more.
I wonder what his family’s medical history looks like. Any cancer, heart disease, senility etc?
I’m pretty happy about Roberts. Going to read up …
If Mark Levin is happy with Roberts, and he is, then so am I. Levin on Roberts, “He follows the Constitution, and he is excellent.”
Well … looks like Schumer’s chompin’ at the bit!
Wow. Someone that might actually interpret the law based on what the Constitution says. What a change. If this is the case, can we have 8 more like this?
”..strict constructionists….whatever that means…just a pretext to redesign the Constitution in their image is my observation..”
Quote from one of Kos geniuses. I couldn’t think of anything nearly as funny.
Saw this quote on Michelle’s blog from one of Roberts’ ruling on a case involving an endangered toad:
I like the guy already.
This quote from Roberts (via Malkin, via Town Hall) makes me feel pretty good about him:
“My own judicial philosophy begins with an appreciation of the limited role of a judge in our system of divided powers. Judges are not to legislate and are not to execute the laws”
Jeff,
I think Margolis has you blackballed and rightfully so…
DEEPHOTLINKER ENABLER!
Here’s an illuminating quote from one of the DUmmies:
Jesus, this guy is a Bircher. Say good-bye to privacy, the environment, reproductive rights, labor unions, and most everything else that made this country great. Say hello to Nazi Germany.
Question: If we on the right were anywhere near as eeeeeevil as this hysterical nutjob thinks we are, why wouldn’t he be locked up in some camp with Oliver Willis and the Dixie Chicks?
Being locked in a camp like that would be evil. Between O-Dub and the pudgy Dixie Chick, good luck on getting to eat more than six calories a day.
BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!
Yours truly, who has yet to establish his conservative bona fides to the satisfaction of certain rightwing gatekeepers, is, however, sadly absent.
Did you send in the 7 boxtops with a SASE? I didn’t get my decoder ring for two months, man…
You’ve been added to the blogsforbush link list.
Fuckin’ A! Way to go, Georgie. It’s been a long time, been a long time, since you did something good.
Someone may have you blacklisted at B4B, but I don’t.
I can’t take credit for linking you there tonight – someone beat me to it – but for rewriting the link text, well, guilty.
Turing: change. As in, someone had to change that grammatical monstrosity.
You know, while I retain a certain fondness for Jeralyn, I gotta call BS on this one:
“It has the appearance that they would oppose anyone Bush would nominate.”
The ‘appearance’? Shoot, the last 24 hours and the next 48 are going to be more than sufficient to demonstrate the reality of their reflexive opposition. Which is probably precisely what the administration is counting on.
Spamword: ‘clearly’. Even Jeff’s registration system agrees with me.
*why wouldn’t he be locked up in some camp with Oliver Willis and the Dixie Chicks*
There’s no doubt Willis enjoys his Gitmo rice pilaf.
Who does a guy have to bang to get included in a roundup these days?<i>
You’re assuming that <i>you are the one who’d be doing the driving.
The interesting thing I’m seeing is people’s general inability to understand the difference between being an attorney advocating your client’s position versus being a judge. People are already using arguments Roberts made as an attorney to somehow justify predictions of how he would rule as a judge.
Here’s an example from the UK (the Telegraph):
He is best known for his anti-abortion line and is likely to support prayers in school and anti-gay legislation, but he is not as conservative as some right-wingers would have wanted.
“I think it’s too soon to start opposing Judge John G. Roberts.”
Sure, let’s wait an hour or so…
Anyone short of Ramsey Clark is sure to get the Treatment from the Dems.
Have you seen Juan Cole’s reaction? Here’s the closing. “Bush and his officials… are trying as hard as they can to ensure paternity rights for rapists here in the United States.”
Hello, deep end!
Hmmmmm.
Yeah. When Souter was appointed everyone, including all the conservative groups and pundits, were talking about how great it was we had gotten a conservative into the Supreme Court.
This guy is going to be on the bench for the next 35+ years. If you’re wrong, you’re going look like a bunch of damn fools for a very long time.
Well, I think it’s Bush that’ll look foolish.
I don’t know a whole helluva lot about Roberts—and I worry that he argued, as a solicitor, to expand the power of the legislature in determining public use—but his “french fry” ruling heartense me.
One thing to consider here is that Bush is expecting the Dems to go ballistic over whomever he nominates—which, given Roberts’ qualifications (and the fact that he presents himself very well), will show poorly on them.
If they do so on Roberts and the public is put off by it, they’ll be hard pressed to do so again and gain traction when the President makes his next nomination.
Yeah, Jeff, your last two grafs are the real point on this issue. It’s to make the Dems look bad attacking this guy, thereby nullifing the circus-like effort when Rehnquist steps down.
There’s a big difference between Bush-41 and W–it’s called conservatism. 41 was moderate, and preferred concensus, whereas W is his own keeper. Souter came straight from Sen. Warren Rudman–a moderate–via Gov. Sununu (41’s chief of staff). Souter was a stealth candidate, whereas Roberts is well known by Republicans, having worked in 2 administrations. Why should Coulter question Roberts, whereas she was all over the Estrada (who has no paper trail) Circiut Court nomination?
When you look at W’s personnel picks, it’s hard to complain–outside of Colin Powell, who even did his job before the UN on the lead-up to Iraq.
I followed your link to the Kossacks, and learned that the only woman on the Supreme Court recently resigned.