What's ahead for Roberts?

As I previously posted, the Alliance for Justice opposed Judge Roberts in 2003. Here's an excerpt from their bio:

Every nominee bears the burden of showing that he or she respects and pledges to protect the progress made in the areas of civil rights and liberties, the environment, and Congress’ constitutional role in protecting the health and safety of all Americans. Mr. Roberts’ record, particularly his record as a political appointee, argues strongly that he would not do so.

That seems to be a fairly restrictive litmus test. It assumes the Justice-to-be is in full agreement with "progress," "civil rights" and "liberties" (as defined by liberals, we assume), and the "environment" and "health and safety" bits can be defined as broadly or narrowly as his supporters and detractors see fit.

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) kicked off the Democrats' response by echoing the "burden" test, saying that

"The burden is on a nominee to the Supreme Court to prove that he is worthy, not on the Senate to prove that he is unworthy. I voted against Judge Roberts for the D.C. Court of Appeals because he didn't answer questions fully and openly when he appeared before the committee," Schumer said.

"I hope Judge Roberts, understanding how important this nomination is — particularly when replacing a swing vote on the court — will decide to answer questions about his views," he said.

Of course, that wouldn't include asking this nominee to say how he would vote on a particular hot-button issue, would it?