Acinom the Intern and don't often see each other. His internship is conducted primarily online and over the phone. But a week or so ago, Acinom, myself, and my girlfriend had a chance to hang out and talk about the important things in life: politics, war, the greatest movies from the 80's (Ghostbusters!).

Well, the conversation turned to Bush's impending Supreme Court nomination, and I said I didn't think they should worry too much, because he probably won't nominate someone as radical as they feared. "Bush isn't as radically conservative as he portrays himself," I told them. "He normally just tries to please his constituents on the far-right, and I think he'll pick a moderate conservative with the fear of reelection past."

I looked across the table to see two sets of wide eyes staring back at me in shock. "Did you just DEFEND Bush?" Acinom asked. My girlfriend looked at me like I was a stranger and said she was scared.

The point is, I think I was right. Honestly, I don't know squat about Roberts, but the T.V. tells me that he's a mainstream pick, relatively. I mean, the worst trash I could find about him on the left side of the blogosphere was this (granted, I didn't put very much effort into my search):

ROBERTS, Circuit Judge: No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation. A twelve-year-old girl was arrested, searched, and handcuffed. Her shoelaces were removed, and she was transported in the windowless rear compartment of a police vehicle to a juvenile processing center, where she was booked, fingerprinted, and detained until released to her mother some three hours later — all for eating a single french fry in a Metrorail station. The child was frightened, embarrassed, and crying throughout the ordeal. The district court described the policies that led to her arrest as ‘‘foolish,’’ and indeed the policies were changed after those responsible endured the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make young girls cry. The question before us, however, is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Like the district court, we conclude that they did not, and accordingly we affirm.

It was the start of another school year and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) was once again getting complaints about bad behavior by students using the Tenleytown/American University Metrorail station. In response WMATA embarked on a week-long undercover operation to enforce a ‘‘zero-tolerance’’ policy with respect to violations of certain ordinances, including one that makes it unlawful for any person to eat or drink in a Metrorail station. D.C. CODE § 35-251(b) (2001). ‘‘Zero tolerance’’ had more fateful consequences for children than for adults. Adults who violate § 35-251(b) typically receive a citation subjecting them to a fine of $10 to $50. Id. § 35-253. District of Columbia law, however, does not provide for the issuance of citations for non-traffic offenses to those under eighteen years of age. Instead, a minor who has committed what an officer has reasonable grounds to believe is a ‘‘delinquent act’’ ‘‘may be taken into custody.’’Id. § 16-2309(a)(2). Committing an offense under District of Columbia law, such as eating in a Metrorail station, constitutes a ‘‘delinquent act.’’ Id. § 16-2301(7). The upshot of all this is that zero-tolerance enforcement of § 35-251(b) entailed the arrest of every offending minor but not every offending adult.

So, Roberts isn't perfect. But he seems to be confirmable and rather tame compared to what a lot of people had feared.