From FOXNews.com: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" title="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" target="_blank"http://www.foxnews.com/story/...,2933,163031,00.html

Some facts about his life:
Harvard Graduate; US Appeals Court for DC Circuit; principal deputy solicitor general, U.S. Justice Department, 1989-93 (Bush 41); lawyer of  Hogan & Hartson, Washington, D.C. from 1986-89 and 1993-2003; associate counsel to President Reagan, 1982-86; and was a law clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist when he was an associate justice in 1980-81.

Based on what I have read from the above site shows me that he is a well-qualified nominee. While some are disappointed that President Bush didn't nominate a female or a minority, pretty much everyone (for now) agrees that he is qualified to the post as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. On FOXNews.com's Voice Your Opinion http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" title="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" target="_blank"http://www.foxnews.com/story/...,2933,162975,00.html, there is a fair mix of responses from both the left and the right.

Now, while the person nominated to replace a woman is a male, President Bush does not have to nominate a woman to replace a woman, even thought women consists of a little more than half of the US population. Bush wanted someone well qualified and will uphold the Constitution and NOT legislate from the bench, and John Roberts is who he chose. Only time will tell if Roberts will uphold the conservative values and ideals.

I support Judge Roberts for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and I hope that the Democrats will give Roberts a dignified and fair hearing.