President Bush nominated John Roberts Jr. last night, despite the rampant rumors (and subsequent cries of misdirection) pointing towards Edith Clement. It didn’t take too long for people to realize that Bush wasn’t about to nominate a pro-choice woman, even if she is a conservative. So after all the talk of nominating a Hispanic or heeding the words of First Lady Laura Bush to replace O’Connor with a woman.

Roberts is a career lawyer who has worked for Rehnquist, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Kenneth Starr. He has only been a D.C. Circuit Court judge for two years, thus the record of decisions that he’s made is going to be short and not too juicy for any opposition. As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts often argued against Roe v Wade:

Overturning Roe was such a primary focus of the Reagan Administration’s Justice Department while Roberts was in the administration, that during an oral argument by the nominee to the Supreme Court a Justice asked, “Mr. Roberts, in this case, are you asking that Roe v. Wade be overruled?” His reply was, “No your honor, the issue doesn’t even come up.” To this the justice replied, “Well that hasn’t prevented the Solicitor General from taking that position in prior cases.”

That said, during his confirmation to the Circuit Court Roberts said, “There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.” Basically Bush and the right wants everyone to think that Roberts, having no paper trail, has no hard line conservative views that will make him, like Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas, part of regressive judicial activists on the current court. The administration and many of its mouthpieces will push the line that any arguments that assert Roberts’ positions on abortion as a lawyer for Reagan and Bush 1 were merely him doing his job. While it’s true that he had obligations to reflect those administrations’ regressive positions, he clearly did so with enough gusto that he is now being tapped to have a seat on the Supreme Court for what could be the next thirty years.

Let’s be clear that because Roberts has essentially no record as a judge he is being chosen purely for his political views, which are at least in part reflected by his actions as a lawyer. I heard an analyst on Fox News this morning say it would be a disgrace for Senate Democrats to ask him hypothetical questions about how he would rule on particularly issues, saying this should be about judicial temperament and not politics. Well that’s just plain bogus. Roberts was chosen for his politics by the Bush administration and Democrats and the progressive opposition need to thoughtfully find out what his politics exactly are.

It’s very early now, but we will learn a lot more about Roberts. Him being a porn freak, gay, having illegitimate children, or past drug use will not discount him from being a Supreme Court justice. What should discount him is if he harbors any overt and actionable political beliefs that will make it likely that he uses the next thirty years of his life to legislate regressive conservative projects from the bench. When it comes to judicial philosophy, a good source for what it all means (and when to cry B.S.) is Stanley Fish’s op-ed from yesterday’s NY Times.

[UPDATE]: Check out this WaPo article on Roberts. It’s a good breakdown of his political positions and how his career path suggests a thoughtful jurist and not a rampaging regressive activist. TST is right, we weren’t going to get a liberal nominee and a conservative doesn’t necessitate a filibuster. Unless something dramatic comes out during Roberts’ vetting, he should be confirmed (which isn’t to say it has to be unanimous). Let’s just be careful and not forget that he was chosen for his political beliefs and his lack of a judicial record.

Philo