Sitting in judgment on John G.

LiveCurrent’s Supreme Court bloggers butted heads over President Bush’s choice of John G. Roberts Jr. to replace Sandra Day O’Connor, and readers are welcome to join them. Below is an edited sampling. Catch the action at latimes.com/livecurrent.

*

Roberts is being presented as a stealth candidate because he lacks a paper trail. [But] his available record is enormously troubling for those who care about civil liberties and civil rights.... It is essential that Roberts explain his personal views on abortion rights, affirmative action and separation of church and state.... Senate Democrats must insist that they will filibuster Roberts unless they are convinced that he is not as far to the right as everything in his record suggests.

-- Erwin Chemerinsky,

Alston & Bird professor of law and

political science professor at

Duke University

COMMENT:

A moderate liberal or moderate conservative justice would represent the “mainstream� far better than another far-right associate justice.

-- David Prestwood

If Senate Democrats turn out to be unsatisfied with Roberts’ responses during the confirmation proceedings, wouldn’t the burden of persuasion then shift to the Senate Democrats to demonstrate that Roberts is unfit for a seat on the Supreme Court if they indeed threaten the use of a filibuster?

-- Manfred Muecke

We need another justice of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s ilk, one who thinks clearly and deeply about the Constitution and what it means, not just following the special interests of his/her puppetmaster.

-- Darby

*

Interest groups will make noise because they have to, but at this point everyone expects Roberts will be confirmed by a wide margin.

-- Orin Kerr, associate prof-

essor of law at George Washington

University Law School

Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. is the literal black box when it comes to his personal views. Unless someone unearths a speech or individual revealing his personal predilections, we can be certain about only one thing: He is well experienced at the Supreme Court and widely respected.

-- Marci Hamilton holds the

Paul R. Verkuil chair in public law at

Yeshiva University’s Benjamin N.

Cardozo School of Law and is the au-

thor of “God vs. the Gavel: Religion

and the Rule of Law�

*

I have already heard rumblings from Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and abortion-rights advocate Nan Aron that a close look is required to pin down his views on various issues. Sorry: At this point Roberts’ correct response is a polite demurrer to any effort to get him off the fence on the weighty issues that come before the court.... We already know too much about Roberts’ overall legal ability to start these proceedings from ground zero. This should be a quick and easy hearing, not a senatorial inquisition.

-- Richard Epstein, James Parker Hall distinguished service professor of law and director of the law and economics program at the University of Chicago

COMMENT:

There are two things that we need to do. First, to be ready for the reaction of the squeeling squeemies on the left and, second, to learn not to listen to the squeeling squeemies on the left.

-- William F. Maddock

*

There is a good deal of nonsense already circulating that Roberts will carry to the court a political agenda to reverse Roe and the like. He is neither pro-life nor pro-abortion; he is pro-democracy. He has already ably demonstrated on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that law is independent of any one judge, and individual judges are bound, and bound equally, by that law.... Roberts is a wonderful human being, caring of others and a profound thinker of the law and, because of those traits, Roberts has the potential to reshape the court -- as a reliably conservative Bill Brennan -- by his kindness.

-- Douglas W. Kmiec holds

the Caruso family chair of constitu-

tional law at Pepperdine University

*

Judge Roberts’ opinions to date are excellent and show a healthy respect for people who disagree with him.

-- Cass Sunstein, Karl N.

Llewellyn distinguished service pro-

fessor of jurisprudence, University of

Chicago Law School

*

Roberts is not a revolutionary. He may want to engage in course corrections, but he won’t be steering the court to a totally different port. President Bush did not pick someone akin to justices Antonin Scalia or Stephen Breyer, whose grand unified theories on constitutional law drive their decisions. If Senate Democrats believe Roberts is too ideologically extreme for the court, they would have to disqualify many of its current members, and almost every circuit judge appointed by a Republican president.

-- John Yoo, professor of law at

the UC Berkeley School of Law

(Boalt Hall)