Why I can't get worked up about Roberts

Because I gave some money last year to causes I considered to be currently the lesser of two evils, I have gotten a lot of spam urging me to write my Senators (let's see that would be ... oh, Kennedy and Kerry) to oppose Roberts (because the K's are probably undecided about him and need to hear from me to sort it all out). My question is "Why?"

The answer is, "because Bush wants him, therefore he must be evil"

While I admit there is a lot of history behind the logic to suggest it's worth, it still seems ad hominem to me.

Also, early on, it came out that he did some pro bono work in the Lawrence decision, and that seemed to stick in the craw of the conservative-religious folks, which naturally peaks my interest.

So, my concern about nominating a SCJ, especially a CJ, is this: will this person interpret the laws from a neutral standpoint, or will he use the fog of mythology and revealed truth to mask the complicated stuff.

Roberts, so far, seems to pass this test. Suspiciously well given his backers. "ah ha!", cry the 527's, "it's a mask! He's a conservative sneak in reasonable clothing. You need to write us another check to stop him". ...

So today, Volokh had an interesting post which sort of backs my view that, given the universe of offensive choices Bush could have made, Roberts doesn't seem like the worst choice.

As I suggested he might yesterday, Roberts today adopted the second approach, that of a traditional judge in a liberal democratic society, believing in truth but recognizing the difficulty of perceiving it.

Looks like I won't be sending the 527's any of my hard earned pennies this time around.