Here are some thoughts from incoming Chief Justice John Roberts:

Ensign said they discussed only one case specifically — the recent 5-4 Kelo v. City of New London decision in which the Supreme Court gave local governments more power to seize people's homes for economic development.

"In general I was pleased with his comment there, but it was hard to pin him down exactly," Ensign said.

"He said private property rights are fundamental to the Constitution."

And this is even more encouraging:

The two also talked about how much weight should be given to judicial precedent versus to the Constitution. That is a key issue as respect for judicial precedent could lead Roberts to look more kindly on past Supreme Court decisions like Roe v. Wade, which guaranteed a right to abortion.

"We obviously didn't get into particular cases, but his one comment was, 'Well, you take an oath to defend the Constitution, not judicial precedent,'" Ensign said.

"...but his [Robert's] one comment was, 'Well, you take an oath to defend the Constitution, not judicial precedent,'"

The fear of some is that Robert's will be another Souter, but that comment by Robert's is interesting. Maybe Robert's will really turn out to be the anti-Souter!

We can only hope! Based on that I'd say he probably would have opposed that eminent domain ruling- not that it would have made a difference since both O'Conner and Rehnquist opposed.

I'm not nearly as worried about new guys going into the Court as I am about the gang that's in there who seem to think government should have the right to do.... ANYTHING.

The second most encouraging thing about Roberts is that he may be able to influence those others with fence sitting positions. The first is that he may actually defend the constitution and give some force to it's meaning.