Well...all the right people are angry and all the right people are glad, so that's a good sign.

Someone has mentioned that Roberts has given money to politicians who are pro-life and oppose abortion even for rape and incest.

Oi!
I am NOT a fan of Ann "trade on my legs" Coulter, but she makes some good points IF indeed it's her writing AND accurate regarding Roberts.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3acj.htm
Pax tecum

My only fear is that the dems will stall as long as possible to keep O'Conner on the bench.
On a side note: Go Cards!! : )

Since he has lots of Washington experience (like Renquist, Scalia, and Thomas as well I think, and unlike Souter and Kennedy), that seems less likely.

I only pray he doesn't "mature" like Souter. That'll leave a bad taste in the mouth.

Somebody at Amy Welborn's has discovered his parish:
http://www.emmcreative.com/
Doesn't look like the Paulist Center at first glance.

The NYTimes wrote today that 'friends say they are [Roberts and Wife] "devout Catholics"'.

Brad, Royals baseball? You must be a good Catholic with a strong habit of penitential practices.

My impression, havind read most of the background material (thanks, Jimmy!) is that Bush has done exactly what he needs to do, that is, appoint the greatest legal trhinkers that he can find.
I am pleased. There was always the possibility that he might be influenced by the silly pundits who said that since O'Connor is a moderate that she needs to be replaced with another moderate. That theory posits that we need a balance of serious and silly judges on the bench.
I think many on the left will consider Roberts their worst nightmare: a brilliant legal mind with impeccable credentials that (though not a "fire-breathing" conservative) is likely to lean right.

Just read the man's short Bio. There is not the slightest doubt but that he is well qualified. Short of an undisclosed felony or a serious hidden vice, only politics can stop him now. Deus adjuva nos.

Can I do unharsh, impersonal invective?
Of course I have hope and know that divine providence will end up bringing good, but the whole process is amiss. Bush can only appoint ciphers and we will only know when they start ruling.
I haven't seen a lot of deep analysis, but do worry that a lot of justices "grow" in office, so a lot depends on whether he is wheat or tare. And I also worry that maybe he might overturn roe, but for the wrong reason (consider if the reasoning said there was no right to privacy), or on lots of other issues rule the wrong way.
Beyond that is the problem of an imperial court. If an imperial court can impose secularism as a state religion, they can try to impose Catholicism, or Freemasonry, or anything else. But ought they have that power? Few people look backwards to see that our country worked quite well when people could live their entire lives without dealing with the federal government (See Thomas Woods "Politically Incorrect guide to American History and his audio lectures and articles at mises.org).
Vatican II's liturgical reforms (I mean the real ones, not the hijack and crash "spirit of" movements) were intended to restore what the early church did - it was the opposite of modernity, and in a way, true conservatism.
But the dissention saying the church needs to accept contraception since this is 2005, should be considered with the same scepticism that assumes a huge, imperial, super-mega-biggie sized government is good simply because that is all we've seen over the last few years. The innovation of communism is now considered as dead as disco (though I sometimes hear a defense of disco, and the occasional track on an oldies station).
Two other Catholics in the public square, Joe Sobran and Pat Buchanan are sceptical of big government. Way back when, it would have been considered an intrusion into the states sovereignity for the federal govenrment (including the courts) to say anything about what their abortion (or contraception) laws ought to be.
Perhaps instead of praying leviathan will get a good jockey, it might be better to slay the beast. Then it wouldn't matter if we get a pro-holocaust court or not as it would not have the power to slay the unborn.

I'd say he'd probably turn out like another Anthony Kennedy if his wife wasn't once Vice-President of Feminists for Life.

"A WARNING: NO TRASHING THE GUY PERSONALLY!"
You may have won this round, Jimmy Akin, but I will have my day at the confirmation hearings, where da rulz of your blog will no longer apply! ::Evil Maniacal Laughing::
Sincerely,
Overlord Schumer

I'm pleasantly surprised. This strikes me as a swinging for the fences pick, but also has a lot of good politics considering that he was most recently (91) approved unananomously for the Appeals Court. This should make for some interesting observing.

Generation Life approves. Below is part of an email I got from them:
As many of you are aware, President Bush announced his choice for Supreme Court Nominee tonight. We applaud and support his decision to appoint appellate court judge, John G. Roberts Jr. Thank you President Bush for standing firm in the face of great opposition.

I don't turn on my TV, other than to watch Royals baseball or occasionally ESPN, so I didn't even know the appointment had occurred until I read it on a blog.
Anyway, to be on-topic, I like the looks of him. Let's all remember to pray for him and all involved.

Has two adopted children.

Thanks Jimmy.
What we know (sort of):
Father Pavone seems to approve of Roberts:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/judges/robertsnomina...
Someone over on Amy Welborn's blog says he is a "practicing Catholic".
Wife works for Feminists for Life.
Feddie of Southern Appeal, who claims to know what he's talking about, says he is a great pick.
I've perused a few feminist sites, and they're whaling and gnashing their teeth (and deleting my posts :) I exploded (as politely as I could) when one of them mentioned Roberts wanted to "resegregate the schools".
He's 50, which is a good age if he's a good judge (a disaster otherwise). He can serve for 20 to 30 years. It's silly to waste a pick on anyone over 55 I'd say. The younger the better.
Appears to have profound respect for Catholic Social Teaching™: has argued cases free of charge for some who couldn't afford it.
Many are trumpeting the fact that he once co-wrote something that was critical of Roe v. Wade, but others point out that he was way down the list of names and was just doing his job for his boss at the time.
Many are trumpeting the fact that he once called Roe v. Wade "settled" law, but others point out he was answering questions posed to him before appointment to an appeals court where he was somehow bound by the "settled" supreme court decision and this should not be construed to mean he would consider it settled if he were a supreme court judge.
Negative: Evil Lord Spectre seems to be okay with it.
I think conservatives deserve an unambiguously anti-Roe pick. But what can you do?
The media are full of it. First Gonzales and then Clement. They don't know anything and are sillier than children. I don't know why I keep turning on the TV.