This is from one of Yahoo's news services.

Roberts eases concerns, but leaves plenty of wiggle room
2 hours, 51 minutes ago
John Roberts more than lived up to his billing Tuesday as a knowledgeable, superbly prepared, genial and highly articulate legal mind - and as a nominee determined not to answer any question that could cause him trouble. But all-day testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee nevertheless offered some new impressions of the prospective chief justice.
The first is that he is more likely to be a cautious, establishment jurist than a firebrand in the mold of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas or at least that is the impression he sought to convey.
Most notably, Roberts distanced himself from some of his most troubling past writings, attributing them to youth (many were written when he was in his 20s), the need to reflect the views of his employer (the Reagan administration) or to misinterpretation (a comment about not wanting homemakers to become attorneys was just a lawyer joke).
If that is self-serving, it is nevertheless enlightening.
On privacy, which Roberts once referred to as a "so-called right," he reversed field, asserting flatly that such a right exists even though it is not explicit in the Constitution. Scalia and Thomas both have questioned that premise, the cornerstone of landmark decisions asserting a woman's right to use birth control or seek an abortion. Roberts also expressed healthy respect for the importance of the court's precedents generally.
On discrimination against women, which he had once mocked, he expressed deep personal concern. On civil rights and voting rights, he similarly dismissed past statements.
All are encouraging reversals, though Roberts, as nominees generally do, left himself plenty of wiggle room.
Most notably, the nominee resolutely refused to discuss his views on abortion, and in doing so he gave both sides in the debate something to worry about. He seemed to signal that the barrier to reversing
Roe v. Wade would be high but not impossible.
Similarly, on civil rights and women's rights, the most critical question was left unanswered: What remedies would he allow the government to apply?
That is a matter of concern, and it was reinforced by his refusal to discuss the reach of Congress' power to regulate issues affecting health, safety, the environment, the workplace and other matters. His previous record has been raising questions.
Though no one expects Roberts to discuss pending cases, he could have been more forthcoming on key issues of settled law.
Still, the dominant impression left by his testimony was of a man who would likely be a dynamic chief justice with an independent - though surely conservative - mind. He went some distance toward easing concerns that he's outside the judicial mainstream.

I'm not convinced, nor satified that he is a good candidate for the court, let alone the head of said court! I have sent email after email to my Senators etc... and because they are bush kiss asses they will vote him(Roberts) in. Their view of morality is dark ages at best and Neo-Con to the inth degree.
They forget that not everyone in this country is the same religion as them and even some that are "christian" do not agree on the interpretation of the "scriptures".
Well our government will be bushed up for years. I just hope we can overcome the bushups shortly after he is gone.