President George W. Bush's Supreme Court nominee, Judge John G. Roberts, possesses an exceptional legal mind, a sterling reputation among his professional peers and a sense of humor about himself that impresses local Catholic law school professors.

"His academic credentials are second to none," said David W. Burcham, Loyola Law School's Fritz B. Burns dean and professor of law. "Everyone seems to agree he has a brilliant legal mind." Harvard Law School graduate Judge Roberts, currently a federal appeals court judge for the District of Columbia, was principal deputy solicitor general in the U.S. Department of Justice in the early '90s.

While at the Justice Department, and, later, in private practice at the firm Hogan and Hartson, he argued cases before the Supreme Court dozens of times on behalf of his clients. Burcham said Roberts, a Republican who was a legal adviser for President Bush during the 2000 battle over Florida's disputed presidential election results, is "clearly conservative" but added, "We don't know where he stands on any particular hot button issues" like abortion.

Gerald McLaughlin, law professor and dean emeritus of Loyola Law School, agreed that Roberts' credentials are impressive and also notes the nominee's droll sense of humor. McLaughlin said Roberts' showed "wit and humility" when responding to a client's query of how they could have lost 9-0 on a Supreme Court case: "We lost 9-0," Roberts replied, "because there were only nine justices."

"I'm very pleased," said Gail Heriot, law professor at University of San Diego. "Roberts is a constitutional law heavyweight. He has a strong record of someone who respects the law."

According to Heriot, opponents to Roberts' nomination wrongly base their arguments on his record as a legal advocate. "He's argued both sides of issues. It's inappropriate to condemn Roberts for a stance he's taken on behalf of clients," said Heriot.

Assistant professor of political science at Mount Saint Mary's College, Helen Boutrous, who shares a common background with Roberts as a former Washington, D.C. attorney working on federal government cases, called the Supreme Court nominee an "excellent oral advocate." Boutrous has observed Roberts in action arguing cases before the Supreme Court and characterizes him as "concise, careful and clear," adding that Roberts has wide-spread respect among Washington D.C.'s legal community.

As far as how Roberts, a Catholic, would affect future Supreme Court rulings, Boutrous cautioned against foregone conclusions. "Religious affiliation does not mean you can predict how a justice will vote," said Boutrous. As a case in point, Catholic Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy changed his mind mid-stream and voted with the majority in 1992 not to overturn the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

Boutrous said it remains to be seen the extent to which Roberts would differ from retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor if his nomination is confirmed. Boutrous noted one of the very first cases the Supreme Court will consider when it resumes in the fall deals with the controversial issue of physician-assisted suicide (Gonzales vs. Oregon 04-623).

The underlying question of Gonzales vs. Oregon, said Boutrous, is whether states can legislate physician-assisted suicide. The Supreme Court will rule on the argument that the 1971 Controlled Substances Act provides the Justice Department the authority to preempt Oregon's Death with Dignity physician-assisted suicide law that went into effect in 1997. Boutrous characterized O'Connor as "very state rights-oriented" in contrast to Roberts "who doesn't have the same ties to states like O'Connor."

Boutrous said she is looking forward to the upcoming confirmation hearings. "I'm happy to have my students see democracy in action," said Boutrous. She said the hearings will stimulate discussion about issues of judicial philosophy, such as the role of the state vs. the role of the federal government.