Supreme Court Nominee Roberts: What You Don't Know Can't Hurt Me

Judiciary Chairman Sen. Specter says it's fine by him if Bush wants to hold back documents from when Roberts was working for Bush I. The argument -- attorney client privilege is invoked -- is rather specious. Instead of debating the issue of what and how much should be disclosed from a nominee's career, one can't help wondering, What are they trying to hide? After all, Bush's people admit they're going slow on releasing other documents because they don't know what's in them that might cause controversy. Nonetheless, more and more info is spilling out about Roberts and his career.

The Washington Post details how Roberts helped Sandra Day O'Connor formulate a non-answer on Roe v Wade and his many, many formulations of far right positions during the Reagan administration.

The New York Times describes a meeting between Roberts and Sen. Wyden of Oregon. According to the Senator, Roberts expressed displeasure with Congress interfering in the case of Terri Schiavo (he'd be an awfully poor candidate if he DIDN'T see Congress's cynical grandstanding as terrible), cited a dissent by Brandeis on "the right to be left alone" (an early precursor to the idea of a right to privacy, which the far right wants to believe doesn't exist) and admitted Roe v Wade is "settled law" for an Appeals Court Judge, but that doesn't really apply to SCOTUS.

Those hearings are going to be humdingers. So do you like Roberts more or less or the same as the day he was announced?