What is your opinion of John G. Roberts?

[Emsworth]

So far, highly favorable. That may, of course, change as he starts writing opinions.

[Emsworth]

Change mine to unfavorable. This guy thinks the fed can force a state to waive its sovereign immunity to receive funding!

Yes, I heard that. Also, in response to Sen. Feinstein, he argued in favor of incorporation under the due process clause and the doctrine of substantive due process. That moves him down another notch, I'm afraid.

Edit: He seems to support Gonzales v. Raich as well.

[Emsworth]

There goes federalism. Congress can now do anything it wants again.

Yes, supporting Raich and attributing little value to Lopez and Morrison does strike me as rather unfortunate. Let's hope that he is just being diplomatic at the Senate hearing, and that in reality he does not actually believe this.

[Emsworth]

We can hope, yes. But for conservatives, there have never been many good surprises on that court. Plenty of bad ones, but not many good ones.

Yes, many of the Republican appointees in the past fifty years haven't turned out as expected: Souter, Stevens, Blackmun, Brennan, Harlan, and Warren all stand out.

The nominations of Democratic Presidents, on the other hand, haven't held any major surprises in the past half-century, with the possible exception of Byron White.

Apparently, Roberts rejected the idea of finding precedent in foreign law, and that is very good.

I don't think that any jurist in the mainstream advocates finding precedent in foreign law (with the exception of English common law).

Kennedy's controversial reference to foreign law in Lawrence v. Texas was only to rebut the suggestion in Bowers v. Hardwick that "Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization." Kennedy did not find precedent in foreign law; rather, he referred to foreign law to disprove the allegation that homosexual conduct was deemed illegal "throughout the history of Western civilization."

[Emsworth]

Well, the death penalty case specifically referenced foreign law as precedent, I think, and he has specifically mentioned foreign law elsewhere - basis for a decision or not, it still is a concern.

In Roper v. Simmons, I believe that the Supreme Court did not use foreign law as precedent; rather, it merely made the casual observation that the U.S. was the only country in the world that executed juveniles.

Merely referring to foreign law is not, I think, concerning in the least, as long as the actual decision is made on the basis of American law.

[Emsworth]

Edit: He seems to support Gonzales v. Raich as well.

Where did he indicate that?

I don't remember the exact quotation. However, he was discussing commerce clause issues, and appeared to indicate that he thought Gonzales to be reasonable based on precedent (which seems rather silly, given Lopez and Morrison).