Here are some highlights from Roberts’ confirmation hearing, as reported by various AP articles:

Early on in his third — and abbreviated — day of testimony, Roberts said Congress has the authority to pass laws barring discrimination based on race, gender and disability, and he defended his record on minority issues.

He said he had argued cases in favor of and against affirmative action and noted that he had participated in a program to assist minority students considering law school.
———————————-

Feinstein asked if Roberts, as a person, believed illegal immigrant children should be educated. Roberts offered legal responses, before saying, “My own view, every child should be educated.”
———————————
Under questioning by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a moderate Pennsylvania Republican, Roberts indicated he may not be the kind of “originalist” conservative that has made Justice Antonin Scalia a pariah to liberals.

Roberts said he took an expansive view of the Constitution’s “liberty” and “due process” protections. He said he believes the Constitution is “alive,” intended by the Founders to “apply to changing conditions.”

. . .

Roberts added, “I depart from some views of original intent, in the sense that those folks—some people view it as meaning just the conditions at that time, just the particular problem. I think you need to look at the words they use, and if the words adopt a broader principle, it applies more broadly.”
———————————-

Roberts also seemed to reassure Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that an act of Congress struck down by the Supreme Court could easily be fixed to pass muster under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Feinstein has expressed strong concern that Roberts might take a narrow view of the Commerce Clause, which Congress has used to expand its legislative reach to anything that affects interstate commerce. She has said a narrow reading could endanger congressional power on many fronts, including environmental protection.
———————————
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said he was pleased to hear Roberts unexpectedly agree with him that review of death penalty cases should be granted even if only four justices want to hear the case rather than the needed majority of five.
——————————-

Kennedy and other Democrats have raised concerns based on memos Roberts wrote as an lawyer in the Reagan administration that urged a narrow application of civil rights laws. Roberts said his memos reflected administration policies.

Kennedy asked Roberts: “Do you believe that we (members of Congress) have the authority and the power to pass legislation to free ourselves from the stains of racial discrimination?

“Yes,” Roberts replied.

Kennedy asked Roberts the same question with regard to combating discrimination against women and the disabled and the nominee again responded affirmatively.
——————————-

Judge Roberts did respond to questions on capital punishment, affirmative action, the limits of Congressional power and other legal issues during 10 hours of testimony before the committee’s 18 senators.

He said, for instance, that he agreed with an aspect of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s decision in a recent case that allowed public colleges and universities to take race into account in admissions decisions. The decision took note of the practical consequences for minority applicants.

“You do need to look at the real-world impact in this area,” Judge Roberts said.

——————————-

[Roberts] was less reluctant to talk about his judicial philosophy, so long as the discussion remained relatively abstract. He distanced himself, for instance, from the most conservative members of the current Supreme Court, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who have said they view themselves as bound by the original meaning of the Constitution.
——————————-

And we all know how Roberts’ has refused to answer questions dealing with Roe v. Wade, abortion in general, Bush v. Gore in 2000, and so on and so forth.

Does this sound like the kind of man we want as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?