Quick - Recite the 10th Amendment

Matt Welch has a wishlist of 7 questions for Judge John Roberts. Excellent.

All that I can say is that I feel pretty uneasy about this nomination. After almost 5 years in office, with the exception of a measly tax cut, some regulatory rollbacks for some campaign donors and other favored businesses, and genuine, yet not fully committed, lipservice to the promotion of an ownership society, President Bush has not exactly proved himself to be an ardent champion of liberty (at least not domestically) and limited government. So, why should we think for a second that his Supreme Court nominee will embrace those ideals? To the contrary, GW's two highest profile legal appointments to date - AG's: Ashcroft and Gonzalez - seem(ed) more interested in expanding the reach of the federal cop-power over us all - both flesh and stone - at the expense of those damned burdensome civil liberties and federalist boundaries. Hopefully I am wrong. But, why not appoint someone with a paper trail that explains his judicial philosophy? I do not buy the stealth-candidate line - that is just not Bush's style. Maybe he knows something we don't know...

UPDATE: Upon further thought - could it be that Roberts has purposefully avoided creating a paper trail with the intention of keeping his beliefs off the radar? Such shrewd and manipulative foresight is so Washington-esque. And that is precisely what frightens me. Professor Randy Barnett sums up my thoughts perfectly (much more eloquently, of course):

John Roberts appears to be the quintessential A+ student. That means being very smart, working very hard, and generally scoping out what the teacher wants to hear--which includes just the right amount of intellectual disagreement. Indeed, these would seem to be the qualities most desired in a judicial clerk who needs to anticipate and articulate the views if his judge, a Deputy SG who needs to voice the views of the administration, a Supreme Court advocate who needs to figure out what the justices want to hear while making his client's case, and an appellate judge who is trying faithfully to anticipate and follow Congress and the Supreme Court. Add to this what appears to be an admirable personal character and you have the "best qualified" person to sit on the highest court. But what may be missing is a judicial philosophy that will withstand the rigors of decades on the Court.

Am I being too hard on Judge Roberts? Perhaps. But I do know this. Writing an article, giving aspeech, or even writing a column or blog about how the Constitution should be interpreted--taking a position, and defending it against all comers--is hard. Not the same kind of hard as standing up to judicial questioning in oral argument, to be sure. Almost completely different, actually. It requires a knowledge of one's own principles and an ability to articulate them and defend them publicly against contrary views.

This is a type of trial by ordeal that hones one's beliefs and commitments. Consider it the academic equivalent of briefing and oral argument about one's judicial philosophy. Even engaging in private debate is no substitute for public disclosure and scrutiny by other scholars. John Roberts has been able somehow to avoid this ordeal throughout a long and distinguished career. This degree of avoidance would seem to have taken effort and discipline.