It's Official: Bush Nominates John Roberts

I think Mark Levin might summed up the choice of Roberts before word got out the best:

"In the short period he has been on the court, John Roberts has shown he does not bring a personal agenda to his work. He follows the Constitution, and he is excellent."

Roberts says it is an honor to be nominated...has a deep regard for the Constitution...acknowledged his family (nice touch)...seems like a warm, caring guy, for what it is worth on face value.

And now, the battle begins...

Update:

Senator Leahy responds: "no one is entitled to a free pass" ... is disappointed over a non-moderate being nominated, almost choked over the word "fair" when saying he was entitled to a fair hearing.

Senator Shumer: Attacking his limited record and unknown views, setting up the liberal Inquisition...nominee must prove he is worthy, the Senate doesn't have to prove he is unworthy.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but since when does a nominee have to prove his worth? I'm not a lawyer, but understand the Senate's role as "advise and consent," not "judge."

Of course, I could be wrong.