Originally Posted by CShine

You are wrong when you say the Miers nomination failed because she was unqualified. It failed for TWO reasons, she was both unqualified AND ideologically unproven. This is the criticial point. If she had a long record of publicly championing a broad range of social conservative causes, christian conservatives would've fought tooth and nail to confirm her even in spite of her lack of professional achievement. On the flip side, if Bush had nominated someone who had both sparkling, top-notch judicial credentials and a sparse ideological track record, the christian right would've grudgingly accepted that nominee the same way they accepted John Roberts.

Originally Posted by CShine

I think we all have to agree that Justice Roberts was and still is a complete unknown on the ideological issues most cherished by the christian right. There are only 3 areas of law where Justice Roberts had clearly-written judicial views prior to his nomination. Those are found in his written appellate opinions which (1) strongly favored a broad expansion of Presidential power in the war on terror, (2) allowed individual property rights to trump federal environmental laws, and (3) expanded police powers while at the same time limiting the rights of criminal defendants.

While those positions are certainly agreeable to mainline conservatives, there is not one single instance where Justice Roberts has publicly championed any of the issues that are considered most crucial by the religious right. He has never taken a professional stance on the abortion question. He has never taken any kind of public stand on the role of religion in the public sphere. Furthermore, he actually gave legal assistance to the team of lawyers who went on to win a major victory for gay rights advocates in the case of Romer v. Evans.