Powerline responds to Ann Coulter whose concerns about the Roberts nomination were highlighted in our previous post:
Less reasonable, it seems to me, is Ann Coulter's complaint reported by Drudge that Roberts may not really be a conservative. Coulter cites the Souter debacle. But Souter was an unknown from New Hampshire whose conservatism was vouched for by John Sununu (conservative, but a politician, not an active lawyer) and Warren Rudman (not even a conservative). Roberts has been a player in Washington legal circles, including actively conservative ones, for more than two decades. And he has worked side-by-side with many of the leading conservative lawyers in D.C. in one or more Republican administrations. To my knowledge, none has a bad word to say about him. The fact that fair-minded liberals also respect him shouldn't be considered a negative.
Roberts may not be as conservative as a few who reportedly were on Bush's list. And a longer track record as a judge would have been nice. But it's unfair to suggest that Roberts is or will be anything like Souter. A comparison to Rehnquist would be far more apt. Indeed, while Coulter contends that "stealth" nominees "never" work out, I don't recall Rehnquist, plucked by Nixon from the Justice Department, having a more substantial track record than Roberts can point to.
Despite Coulter's misgivings the response among conservatives to Roberts' nomination remains predominately positive and the response among the left remains predominately, if not uniformly, negative. These are good signs.
