Supreme Timing

The initial television take last night was that this was not an incendiary nomination. "The Democrats were fearing someone much more conservative," Tim Russert said. "By all accounts, a lightning-fast intellect," said Brian Williams. Fox's Fred Barnes said Roberts was fine but not "demonstrably conservative" enough for some on the right, while Bill Kristol said he was now an "obvious" candidate to succeed Rehnquist.

MSNBC's Abrams says Bush threaded the needle: "He's just conservative enough to satisfy the base and yet there's not enough on paper for the liberal groups to get him."

The morning analyses, if you read between the lines, seem to say: shrewd choice .

Los Angeles Times :

"In choosing Roberts, Bush settled on a traditional jurist with longtime Republican ties and sterling conservative credentials. But Bush missed an opportunity to appoint another woman to the court, or nominate the first Latino justice. Bush has opted for a low-key, cautious conservative to replace a judicial centrist who frequently cast a deciding swing vote on the nine-member court."

New York Times : "While Judge Roberts has impeccable Republican credentials and a record of service in the Reagan and first Bush administrations dating to 1981, his paper trail of opinions is comparatively thin, and he is not seen as a 'movement conservative.' . . .

"Abortion rights groups fault him for arguing, as deputy solicitor general for the first Bush administration in 1990, in favor of a government regulation banning abortion-related counseling in federally-financed family planning programs.

"He also helped write a brief then that restated the first Bush administration's formal opposition to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Court decision that established the Constitutional right to abortion, contending, 'We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.' But when pressed during his 2003 confirmation hearings for his own views, he said: 'Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land,' and added, 'There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.' "

Boston Globe : "Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. has developed a reputation in the nation's capital as a respected intellectual with strong conservative credentials, but he has produced little record of his personal views on the most incendiary social issues that are settled by the nation's highest court."

Wall Street Journal: "Judge Roberts may be difficult for the Democrats to attack as being an extremist. Those who have worked with him say he is a gracious judge likely to communicate effectively during confirmation hearings, and who has avoided provocative comments from the bench or in public speeches. And the business community is certain to hail the selection of a jurist who often represented businesses on regulatory matters."

Chicago Tribune : "President Bush's prime-time nomination Tuesday of Judge John Roberts Jr. to fill a Supreme Court vacancy demonstrated, once again, the president's signature defiance of the expected. . . .

"In Roberts, many analysts agreed, Bush could appease his conservative base, argue convincingly that the judge was the best-qualified available nominee and fend off any easy demonization of Roberts by Democrats. But Roberts is a step backward in terms of the court's diversity and that carries risk for the president. In that sense, rather than a bland choice, it was bold.