Roberts for chief

I have tended to post these things in the "Supreme Court" thread on the "PDT News Network" forum, but thought it appropriate to post some personal thoughts here, as opposed to actual news bits.

It is no secret that I side with what was the Rehnquist-Scalia-Thomas bloc of the 1994-2005 court, and that the three of them were the best writers on the court. While I don't know how Roberts will rule, his writing and legal brillance heretofore lead one to believe he is in the mold of Rehnquist. This in and of itself is hardly surprising, as Roberts clerked for Rehnquist back when he was an associate Justice, and worked to help prepare Justice O'Connor for her confirmation hearings back in 1981.

Rehnquist was the sole remaining justice who had voted in the Roe v Wade case, and he often spoke or wrote about how Roe was wrongly decided and should be overturned. The question with Roberts is will he be as outspoken on the issue as Rehnquist was?

Roberts is clearly the right choice at the right time for this vacancy. As for the O'Connor vacancy, one can only hope Bush will follow through with his promise of a justice in the mold of a Scalia or a Thomas. I have faith that he will, as he has shown a knack for doing the opposite of conventional wisdom. They said it would be a woman to replace O'Connor; they all thought it was Edith Clement; he nominated Roberts. When Rehnquist died, they said he wouldn't complicate the process by switching Roberts to Chief; he did just that, and in such a way as to make the Senate still confirm him prior to the Court's October Term 2005.

There is no shortage of possible nominees for the O'Connor vacancy. The standard names of Alito, Garza, McConnell, Luttig, Owen, Brown, Jones, and even Estrada have made their way around the circles. The CW says Bush will wait until after Roberts is confirmed to name O'Connor's replacement, but I would not be surprised to see Bush make his pick before the Judiciary committee is done with Roberts.