I am definitely keeping up on the Roberts hearings. I find issues of the Supreme Court to be extremely interesting. I have been reading articles, and even some of the transcripts from the hearings.
So far, Roberts has been criticized for not telling his views on certain issues. Democratic Senators keep saying that he will not answer questions or tell how he would rule on abortion or a "right to die." Roberts says that he is not a politician and does not need to make campaign promises. Furthermore, these are touchy issues to him since they may actually come up under his watch.
I think he's being completely fair. Senator Feinstein asked for his personal views on assisted suicide. He refused to answer. The way I see it, there's only one reason to ask the judge his personal views: so they can be skewed into his legal views. He pointed out something interesting near the beginning of his testimony. When he worked as a lawyer for the Reagan administration Roberts urged against the executive giving certain pension authority to Congress having to do with the Lebanon crisis. Senator Leahy appeared convinced that Roberts has an overblown view of presidential authority. Roberts countered this by pointing out that any good and careful lawyer who worked for the executive and whose job it was to ensure the executive keep its power, would have done what he did. It was his job, he had to, otherwise he would not be protecting the authority that he was paid to protect. That seems to reveal a lot about Roberts in my book. He values the job he is doing at the moment, he does not mix his personal feelings into it. When or if he takes the oath of office, he will most likely uphold the Constitution and all the precedents that have been set since then. Thus, he is a lot more like Rehnquist than I at first noticed.