Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked the rhetorical question of the day when he wondered aloud that, despite Judge Roberts' obvious brilliance, his warm, open-minded and impartial demeanor, and most of all, his refreshingly consistent view of a judge as a restrained, "bottom-up" decider of cases and not a usurping policy maker — whether he would get any votes from the Democratic side at all. Sen. Graham, of course, fashioned the bipartisan moratorium to the problematic filibuster of appellate nominees, so his was both a poignant and important observation.

No one doubted that Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer were both highly able and highly liberal. Ginsburg as an ACLU advocate was often way beyond settled law and Breyer had been a Kennedy staffer, yet, with their articulated commitments to decide cases on the law and the record of each case, they were appropriately confirmed 96-3 and 89-9 respectively. On the merits, Roberts deserves 100-0 — and were that politically unlikely tabulation somehow nevertheless to occur, it would be an act of profound Senate responsibility and good will that would signify a full-fledged return to respecting the constitutional design, and most especially, the separation of powers.

Don't misunderstand. Roberts could not possibly have satisfied everyone in the substance of his answers yesterday. He didn't. First of all, a good number of questions could not be ethically answered. Again, following the lead of Justice Ginsburg, he noted that it is wrong to predict, forecast, or promise particular legal results. Roberts' answers therefore carefully and largely avoided expressing personal views on cases that might come before him or his personal view of the merit or demerit of past cases.

Yet, Roberts was entirely forthcoming in stating an encyclopedic grasp of constitutional and federal law. On abortion, he conceded Roe, as subsequently modified by Casey, to be a precedent worthy of respect, and then prudently declined to guarantee either its immunity from, or certainty of, reconsideration. Roberts also refused to be blamed for Hurricane Katrina or national poverty, and likewise, politely but firmly resisted the caricature of his staff lawyering for the Reagan administration as being against civil rights or women.

Regrettably, some Senators could not resist asking Roberts to make pledges about his Catholic faith. It was ugly when John F. Kennedy was asked this in 1960 and such "religious test" is no prettier over four decades later and contrary to the spirit if not letter of the Constitution. Of course, nothing in the Catholic faith directs judges to disregard their oath of office, so it is easy to put to rest. Nevertheless, when Senator Feinstein asked him to affirm an absolute separation of church and state, Roberts thoughtfully paused. Once again, Roberts simply and plainly reflected that such absolutism is not the text of the guarantee of religious freedom and did not even coincide with the Court's most recent thinking allowing at least some public display of the Ten Commandments.

Overall, Roberts refrained from answers that would undermine the institutional independence of the judiciary or prejudge constitutional controversy. This humility extended even to friendly efforts to liken him to the late Chief Justice Rehnquist, whom Roberts obviously admired and learned from. He would be his own man, Roberts said. And at the end of a very long day, that is a very welcome prospect for the Court and the nation.