What SCOTUS needs

Hugh Hewitt sees signs that the attack on Roberts will be based on his religion and his wife's activities in anti-abortion groups. If so, it will make it easier to get confirmation, because most Americans don't believe that one's religion should be a criterion for any job. There are several Catholics on the opposition team, but they can hardly be said to be letting their religion dictate their decisions, since they are all pro-abortion. If Justice Roberts is to be rejected because he's Catholic, are not Ted Kennedy and John Kerry out of place in the Senate? "Moderate" liberals will oppose Roberts, with a snooty sniff of disapproval without acknowledging reasons that sound intolerant.

I'm more afraid of the left demagoging the Hedgepeth case than I am that their suggestion that practicing and devout Catholics should be kept out of power. The religion card may work with the hard core abortion activists, but not with the majority of Americans.

Bill Kristol has penned an eloquent endorsement of Roberts based on the aphorism "It takes an insurrection to change a country. It takes an establishment to govern one." He views Roberts as the anchor of a new establishment in jurisprudence who will lead with "integrity, intelligence, humility and genuine human decency" rather than the kind of rhetorical petards for which Scalia and Thomas are famous. Those qualities, cited by an attorney who clerked for John Roberts as a summer associate at Hogan & Hartson, will make it difficult, if not impossible to deny him confirmation. I think that Roberts' intelligence and understanding of how the judiciary is supposed to function under the Constitution are the best assurance we have that he will not slide off on that leftward slippery slope over time as other conservative appointees have.

This is one of the most important issues of our time. I hope Republicans understand that and that conservatives will not screw it up by demanding another bombthrower instead of a quiet, steady and wise judge.