Rightwing pundits extraordinaire Ann Coulter and Charles Krauthammer have each expressed reservations regarding the nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr., as the proper Supreme Court Justice to succeed Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. I believe that Ann’s and Charles’ concerns regarding Roberts’ “blank slate” record and potential for “doing a Souter” should be allayed some, by the release of Reagan-era documents regarding Roberts. The Washington Post today published an in-depth look at the records, which paint him pretty clearly as a judicial conservative in the strict constructionist school.

During 1981-82, Roberts served as a special assistant to then-Attorney General William French Smith. Even as a twentysomething lawyer in Reagan’s Justice Department, Roberts took firm stands against judicial activism on such matters as affirmative action, Title IX, abortion, school busing, and prayer in public school. From the Post article:

Much of Roberts’s time at the Justice Department was taken up by the debate over GOP-sponsored bills in Congress that would have stripped the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over abortion, busing and school prayer cases. He wrote repeatedly in opposition to the view, advanced by then-Assistant Attorney General Theodore B. Olson, that the bills were unconstitutional. He scrawled “NO!” in the margins of an April 12, 1982, note Olson sent to Smith. In the memo, Olson observed that opposing the bills would “be perceived as a courageous and highly principled position, especially in the press.”

Roberts drew a bracket around the paragraph, underlined the words “especially in the press,” and wrote in the margin: “Real courage would be to read the Constitution as it should be read and not kowtow to the Tribes, Lewises and Brinks!”

Ironically, Roberts even helped to prepare Sandra Day O’Connor for her senate hearing for her nomination to the Supreme Court. Roberts wrote:

The approach was to avoid giving specific responses to any direct questions on legal issues likely to come before the Court, but demonstrating in the response a firm command of the subject area and awareness of the relevant precedents and arguments.

In a related Post story, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is reported as stating firmly that Roberts is free to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, despite his past comments referring to Roe as “settled law.” From this article:

“If you’re asking a circuit court judge, like Judge Roberts was asked, yes, it is settled law because you’re bound by the precedent,” Gonzales told the AP. “If you’re a Supreme Court justice, that’s a different question because a Supreme Court justice is not obliged to follow precedent if you believe it’s wrong.”

I’d been holding off on blogging much in support of Roberts until I had seen a bit more of this enigmatic nominee’s philosophy. I’m not worrying too much anymore about Roberts starring in David Souter Part Deux once he is confirmed to this country’s hightest court. (Of course, one can never say never.) I believe it is fair to have as much confidence in him as one can have in any reasonable conservative who has nonetheless prudently held many of his ideological views close to the vest. It will be interesting to see how the conservative punditsphere reacts to this new information.

UPDATE: bRight & Early is absolutely brilliant on the pending confirmation hearing shenanigans we can expect from the Democrats. He’s even got flow charts. (HT: basil’s blog)

Cross-posted at TMH’s Bacon Bits