Judging Roberts

The Washington Post calls President Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court “a man of substance and seriousness” and a conservative who has never been an “ideological crusader.” Today’s Washington Post editorial mirrors our own on Judge John G. Roberts Jr. -- he is an impressive choice, but let’s reserve final judgment until the Senate hearings.

Our editorial flags a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on the fate of detainees in Guantanamo as something senators ought to focus on, but the Post and the New York Times are concerned about Roberts’ views on federalism. A dissent he wrote in a case involving the Endangered Species Act suggests a narrow reading of the power granted the federal government by the Constitution’s commerce clause, according to today’s editorial in the New York Times. But the NYT says it would be irresponsible to take a position on the nomination of Roberts until his background is carefully reviewed. We’re all in agreement there, and that is a victory for the White House -- this is not a nominee who can be summarily dismissed.

Elsewhere today, the Wall Street Journal attacks a new immigration proposal advanced by two conservative Republican senators, John Cornyn and Jon Kyl. The Journal’s editorial says it goes too far in militarizing the border, an approach that can only backfire. The Journal prefers the more liberal immigration reform proposed by Sens. John McCain and Ted Kennedy. Republicans are split on immigration -- with libertarians and big business on one side and social conservatives on the other. The Journal’s editorial makes a strong case for corporate America’s view.