BoldlyRide

Below I fault Senator Schemer (hey, that's what the spell check sayes it should be) for declaring that the burden is on the supreme court nominee. Here's what Hamilton says about the Senate's role:
To what purpose then require the cooperation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though in general, a silent operation. I would love more silence from vocal members of that austere body, and Sen. Schemer in particular) It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of responsibility in the administration.

As we look at John Roberts, we see no personal connection to the President (no favoritism) and we see that legal minds of both parties support his nomination (so he does not appear unfit from a qualifications standpoint); I have heard nothing of any family connections Roberts may have with those in power; As for popularity, if, as the Dems say, he is not mainstream, he can hardly be popular so that cannot be the basis for his appointment -- no reason so far to oppose the appointment.