Power Line: How Will They Attack Roberts?

Power Line has a nice, neat discussion about the attacks that the Left is lining up against Roberts' nomination. What particularly liked in that post, was the following discussion, since Roberts' quoted language so beautifully sums up what makes a good conservative jurist, and what is so scary about the role the Left demands of its activist judgse:

The Democrats also will want to talk about Hedgepeth v. Washington Metro Authority, in which a twelve-year-old girl was taken into custody, handcuffed, and driven to police headquarters because she ate a french fry in a Washington metro station. Roberts wrote the opinion for the D.C. Circuit, affirming a district court decision that dismissed the girl's complaint, which was predicated on the Fourth and Fifth amendments. Roberts' opinion is a good example of conservative jurisprudence. He begins by noting that 'No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation,' and pointing out that the policies under which the girl was 'apprehended' have since been changed. Nevertheless, the controlling law was clear, and the court was not authorized to second-guess the wisdom of the District's policies: 'The question before us,' Roberts wrote, 'is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.' One basic difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives understand that there are any number of ideas that may be stupid, but are not unconstitutional. As Roberts wrote: 'Rational basis review does not authorize the judiciary to sit as a superlegislature.'