chief justice roberts

i agree that the concept of legal precedent is a "very important consideration." i don't think it's effective to fight roberts' confirmation. i think, also, if he's being honest, he's a conservative of a different stripe than either party expects or fears. he is the sort who won't rock the boat, who won't want to change things. in essence we'll have a static supreme court for the next thirty years. we'll have minor refinement and clarification, but few dramatic decisions. unless something extreme arises, i expect roberts to back congress and the president except where their actions explicitly conflict with the constitution. if he really values precedent, then he won't turn back the clock on anything. he also won't push things forward, either. i don't see roberts as a threat to anything but change. it's sandra day o'connor's replacement we have to watch.

all of this is drawn from third-hand knowledge, and reflects my own opinions of this possibly incomplete and distorted information. maybe i'm wrong, what do i know?