Some civil liberties advocates try to portray Roberts as some kind of judicial child abuser because he refused to overturn the arrest of a 12-year-old girl in a Washington, D.C., Metrorail station when she ate a French fry in violation of the law. Roberts indicated in his decision he wasn't happy about the situation; however, the issue wasn't whether the law was a good one but rather whether it violated the girl's constitutional rights; it did not. That is judicial restraint.
Some people on the right, notably conservative pundit Ann Coulter, say Roberts is a "blank slate," and the only thing he's got going for him is the he has argued cases before the Supreme Court. Coulter's complaint is that the time for payback for Robert Bork has finally arrived, and the president has nominated someone who doesn't entice liberals to throw a fit.
I don't know how to plumb the depths of the court decisions Roberts participated in to prognosticate how he might rule in the future. But everything I've seen and heard of this jurist - former Rehnquist law clerk, deputy solicitor general, well-respected lawyer at the Washington law firm Hogan & Hartson, and in the evaluation of most lawyers one of the most articulate and persuasive oral advocates to argue before the Supreme Court for many a year - makes me feel confident about him.
Roberts' nomination to the Circuit Court of Appeals in 2003 was reported favorably to the Senate floor by the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 16 to 3. He was confirmed by the full Senate without significant Democrat opposition.
The bottom line is that Roberts is a highly qualified conservative jurist who can be confirmed to the Supreme Court in the current political environment. Sen. Hillary Clinton has announced that she, too, will support the Roberts nomination, which means there is no fight to fight. Let's get Roberts confirmed and move on.