Wary but responsible? Let's see... First they say he is unacceptable if he thinks Roe v. Wade should be revisited. Then they say he has to be in the "constitutional mainstream" (how do you suppose they define "mainstream"). And they state he has to "follow precedent" (regardless of the legitimacy of that precedent).

This is not the kind of view I care to see endorsed.
 

This is what a Professor at my law school said about Roberts in a recent article in the San Diego Daily Transcript:
Michal Belknap, a constitutional law professor at California Western School of Law, points out that most of Roberts' statements were given as a lawyer defending a client and shouldn't necessarily be taken as his philosophy.



"People who are using them for that purpose are misusing them," Belknap said. "He makes for a relatively small target for liberal opponents to shoot at.



"Certainly he is pretty conservative from what you can tell, but he seems to have absolutely outstanding legal qualifications and not much of a paper trail because he hasn't been a court of appeals judge for very long."