Just watched some of the John Roberts hearing. Made simplistic analogy of the proposed position being like the umpire at a baseball game. To paraphrase: "to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat". Key points I heard from his speech: (which was basically a canned interview speech as anyone who has been in multiple job interviews) 1) He never imagined having the opportunity to be in the position he is in today. 2) He thanked all those who have made it possible: Family, GWB, colleagues 3) He intentionally or unintentionally negatively reflected on the life of a colleague who had recently passed away (I did not see the relevance) 4) He indicated of a situation where he won a case against the government. Specifically indicated that HE viewed the law more correctly. 5) He doesn't make the law, he just calls it like HE sees it. 6) He does not have an agenda because he is not a politician. 7) Politicians make promises. 8) He promised to be impartial and non-political. Supreme Court makes laws... They are not just umpires... They can decide to change the color of the baseball, the shape of the bases, the height of the fences, the number of fielders, and then make the ultimate call between balls and strikes. Personally, I've been an umpire and have been a basketball ref... I don't know why people trust me, but they do... I can, at anytime, make a bad call intentionally. No matter what the replay says, the Ref makes the final call. This John Roberts does not appear to understand or (at least) acknowledge the scope of the position for which he is to hold. Perhaps he is just THAT confident in the system.