There's every indication that she's very similar to Judge Roberts – judicial restraint, limited role of the court, basically a judicial conservative.

Roberts is much more inclined toward a posture of judicial restraint than she [O'Connor] was--judicial restraint being not having courts being the first place people look to solve social problems. They should look to the legislatures.

Judicial restraint is a buzzword just like activist judge. Everybody's in favor of judicial restraint, but what does it mean? If it means not acting as a check against majoritarian excesses or upholding constitutional rights against improper government action, then restraint is not something admirable.

I come away with a very strong impression that Roberts will be a much more classical judicial restraint justice than any of the current justices. He betrays no real policy agenda.

President Bush has nominated Roberts to become the most powerful judge on the nation's highest court. The public has a right to see documents that will give us more information about his judicial philosophy. If the White House continues to stall, then it begs the question, 'What is the president hiding, and why?' ... I applaud Senators Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold for stating they will ask Roberts the tough questions and expect clear answers. We are urging Wisconsinites who value freedom and privacy to call their senators and urge them to oppose Roberts' nomination.

[Roberts replied that any judge would first turn to Roe's reaffirmation in Casey.] It's a settled precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis, ... And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not.