Good catch or bad

I've heard so many different opinions about John Roberts and whether or not President Bush picked the right man. Ann Coulter, one of my absolute favorites:

We don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever... Oh, yeah...we know he's argued cases before the supreme court. big deal; so has Larry Flynt's attorney.

...it makes no difference that conservatives in the White House are assuring us Roberts can be trusted. We got the exact same assurances from officials working for the last president Bush about David Hackett Souter. I believe their exact words were, "Read our lips; Souter's a reliable conservative."

From the theater of the absurd category, the Republican National Committee’s “talking points” on Roberts provide this little tidbit:

“In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts argued—free of charge—before the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the District’s Public Assistance Act of 1982.”

I'm glad to hear the man has a steady work record, but how did this make it to the top of his resume?

Finally, lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural.

If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, they'd better be pursuing the Miss America title.

Not to mention that Ann's friend, Ben Shapiro called me a little while ago and the usually full of many words 21-year-old can only say it's a bad pick. Now, Coulter did write that the the young Shapiro should be nominated for O'Connor's seat, however, I'm sure that as chummy as they may seem, they did not conspire to take over SCOTUS.

I found this on Townhall.com

I certainly hope Judge Roberts means it when he says: judges should not legislate or execute the laws. I also noticed that Judge Roberts clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist. See, the Chief Justice suffers from a disease, not cancer, but something far more insidious. It eats at your soul and over time makes one lose all perspective, where any thing goes, including secret court hearings.

Of course we want someone to interpret the constitution. As my friend Phillip Juraegi, an attorney for former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, will be the first to point out, our Supreme Court Justices are there to interpret the law, not make the law.

So we have a nominee that rocks according to most conservatives but based on what I've read today, I'm not so sure anymore...