It's the will of the people, right?

Well the will of, what, 52% of the people. I think the big, lumpy middle, by being evenly divided, has pretty much demonstrated its ambivalence, and thus any swings too hard in either direction will result in reactive other-direction-ness. The electorate fishtails like a bus on a switchback.

I've read a bit (particularly at Kos) about Roberts, today. Last night on TV (I think msnbc, but I'm not sure, as I was flipping during the Red Sox game), the talking heads said Roberts has stated Roe is the settled law of the land and there's nothing in his personal beliefs that would keep him from upholding it (I think he indicated this when he was up for a judgeship thing in DC, maybe?). They then acknowledged though, that there was nothing to indicate he would be averse to chipping away at it, either.

Does this sound true, or make him out to be more moderate than he likely is?

Somehow google senses what country you're logging in from.

Technically, it senses the country your server is in. (My computer is in NYC, but we're on a UK network, so I always end up on .co.uk sites.)

Gonzales, who wouldn't be all that bad

I have to say, all other considerations aside, that it's a sad day when people consider a dude who approves of torture a best-case scenario. I think Gud is right, people were saying "he's not all that bad," which proves that it's possible to overlook depravity when you're desperate.

Raquel have you tried putting in www.google.us?

Here's [link] the Washington Post bio, brief as it is. There seems to be very little intel on him.

I have to say that I would rather have a brilliant legal mind of either side rather than a party-line moron, but that's a bit unlikely.

Also, thanks Jessica for the tip!

That works too, Cindy, thanks.

Moon landing was what, three Rooster Years ago?

I've read a bit (particularly at Kos) about Roberts, today. Last night on TV (I think msnbc, but I'm not sure, as I was flipping during the Red Sox game), the talking heads said Roberts has stated Roe is the settled law of the land and there's nothing in his personal beliefs that would keep him from upholding it (I think he indicated this when he was up for a judgeship thing in DC, maybe?)

He has worked to overturn Roe v. Wade, but he has also said that was for a client and what you just said. I had just head he had worked to overturn it, but not the other part in my first post. Dunno what to think.

I have to say that I would rather have a brilliant legal mind of either side rather than a party-line moron

Well, Scalia is a brilliant party-line guy (and actually, I bet he would be 90% less galling if he weren't also obnoxious), and lefties loathe and fear him, but he's certainly a worthy opponent. (I just wish he weren't so obnoxious! I mean, hello! You are wearing those robes to rescue you from any intimations of flab or ugly neckties. Have some dignity above the neck, will you?)

Thomas is an idiot party-line guy, and he's just an embarrassing boob in a dress.

Brain-to-brain, I think I could beat Thomas in single combat. But Scalia has been known to admit, grudgingly, that things like desegregation are worthwhile despite their violating his intellectual method; whereas, if the Republican party asked him to, Thomas would insist that gravity does not exist right until the moment the falling piano squashed him flat.

I wasn't going to name names, but you pegged it. Thomas is a total waste of oxygen. Scalia's obnoxious, but he's smart enough that I know he has a reason for his decisions. I'd take Scalia over Thomas on the Court any day.