I was not particularly impresssd with Mr. Roberts as the nominee for the Supreme Court. Nor do I think of him as a good choice for the Chief Justiceship.
Personally, the best candidate, in my opinion, would have been Clarence Thomas. His judicial philosophy is usually the best of anyone on the Court (he is more concerned with the Constitution than with the conservative agenda per se, unlike Scalia). Scalia would be a difficult sell as Chief Justice, and the other justices are not conservative enough, in my opinion. In general, I prefer to see Chief Justices taken from the ranks of associate Supreme Court Justices. And, to be honest, the fact that he is black would poke a stick in the liberals' eyes (although her would, in my opinion, still be the best choice if he were white).
Of course, the Anita Hill thing probably would resurface if this were done. Honestly, I think that Anita Hill may have precluded Thomas from getting the Chief Justiceship (I'm not saying that without Anita Hill he would become Chief Justice, either at this time or in the future; just that whatever chances he had were likely destroyed by l'affaire Hill). It is even possible that he doesn't want to be promoted because he wants to avoid reliving that brouhaha.
In any case, I have heard some things that concern me about Roberts, but I haven't done enough research into him or into other candidates for the Supreme Court to actually present an alternative plan as to whom I would have nominated to replace O'Connor. And honestly, if not Thomas, I'm not certain whom I would pick as the successor to Rehnquist; outside of the Supreme Court, I don't have much knowledge of who are judicial candidates are.
Here is a criticism of Roberts by Lawrence Auster. I'll try to get more thoughts together over the next few days.
That is all.