A L.A. Times editorial argues that John Robert’s nomination to the Supreme Court is “not worth fighting over” :
By now it is clear that Roberts is no crazed ideologue intent on overturning precedents willy-nilly. He appears to be a thoughtful conservative who values and respects the social stability provided by the law’s slow evolution.
In other words, he’s not going to overturn the precedents the editors favor, those cases that themselves overturned precedent. When our judges overturn precedent, that’s the law’s slow evolution. When your judge overturns precedent, that’s a crazed, willy-nilly ideologue.