As for John Roberts....

Bush's SCOTUS nominee.

I don't know much (understatement) about the guy, some sites say he's way out the mainstream and a partisan hack, some mention he's just had two years at being a judge, and some say that the president could've done worse.

My view is that most liberals were never going to like who Bush nominated, of course he was going to nominate someone on the right. The goal was for Bush to nominate someone who could be right of center, but left of the Shiavo crowd, which could lead to a quick, painless approval. I hoped he could nominate someone who wouldn't cause a huge fight that could divide the country even more so.

It could be argued that Bush couldn't nominate a consensus pick. No matter who he would nominate, the Dems would oppose. I personally don't believe that, I think a consensus choice could've been worked out (and it could be for all I know, Roberts doesn't have much of a record to go on). There was a comprimise on the filibuster debacle and the Dems have been pretty good at working with Bush (ie: tax cuts, Iraq, PATRIOT Act up until Bolton), even though he doesn't really give them anything in return for their help. So I do think he can get a nominee through the Senate without TOO much bickering.

A cynic could say that Bush wants a fight. He wants a long Senate fight to take the media off the whole Rove scandal and if the Dems oppose too much (or just reflectively oppose whoever he nominated) he could paint them as obstructionists.

However, if he did nominate someone who was WAY too out of the mainstream and somehow the Dems were proved right for not approving him, it could backfire and totally screw up his entire agenda.

Personally, I agree with Robert W. Gordon (the final link up top) the Dems shouldn't praise the pick and should only oppose if and when he refuses to answer questions. This guy doesn't have much of a record, so more questions the better.