Roberts's Rules

Roberts also dished media advice, the New York Sun finds, at one point discussing the negative coverage that Justice was getting in such conservative magazines as National Review and Human Events: "The repeated complaint is that Carter holdovers are thwarting implementation of conservative policy by presenting only established liberal legal dogma to their superiors, who are ill-equipped to refute the analyses presented to them." The magazines were concerned that too many political appointees were "establishment lawyers who are not committed to the Reagan ideology, particularly on the so-called 'social issues.' "

The Roberts advice to Smith: dodge the charge. "It really should not matter what the personal ideology of our appointees may be, so long as they recognize that their ideology should have no role in the decisional process."

Just about everyone, meanwhile, reports on the advice given Sandra Day O'Connor before her confirmation hearings: "The approach was to avoid giving specific responses to any direct questions on legal issues likely to come before the court."

For a man who so many profiles said never expressed his views on hot-button subjects like abortion, there was also this swipe at "what is broadly perceived to be the unprincipled jurisprudence of Roe v. Wade."

These opinionated, often funny, asides may be no different than you'd find in any lawyer's internal correspondence. But they certainly provide a more complicated portrait than the initial profiles.

So now there's a new conventional wisdom, embodied by this morning's NYT : Roberts has "a philosophy every bit as conservative as that of the policy makers on the front lines of the Reagan revolution . . . Sometimes, he took positions even more conservative than those of his prominent superiors."

"Carried to its logical political conclusions," says the Philadelphia Inquirer , "Roberts' view of a highly restrained judiciary would result in a federal government that is more neutral in guarding individual and civil rights and stays out of many other controversies over how life is lived in the United States."

How goes the confirmation fight? Salon's Michael Scherer leads off with a quote from Nan Aron, head of the liberal Alliance for Justice:

" 'We're doing our best to press the senators to do a full and thorough investigation. . . . I don't know what the record will show.' "

"Such words do not come easily to the head of the Alliance, the umbrella group for more than 70 environmental, consumer and civil rights groups. Aron has known for years that Roberts was in the pipeline for the job, but she also knew there was little public information to evaluate his record . . .

"That premonition helps explain the early success of President Bush's nominee rollout. While Roberts smiled for the cameras, liberal interest groups spent much of the last two weeks on the sideline, muted by everything they do not know. Gone, at least for now, are clear threats of a 'divisive confirmation battle' or warnings that a conservative pick would cause a 'constitutional catastrophe.' President Bush picked a judge of the highest reputation and credentials, a corporate lawyer with Democratic friends, the looks of a Boy Scout leader, and a family that evokes Kennedy comparisons.

"But all those advantages pale in comparison to his most appealing quality for Republicans: Roberts lacks any substantive public record that advocates like Aron could use to mount their attacks. Pro-life, anti-gay rights, and pro-business conservatives are happy with the selection. But for many liberal groups, he remains hidden in plain sight."