Trading up.(THE LAW)(chief justice selection)

PRESIDENT BUSH'S nomination of John Roberts to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor presents an opportunity to bring the Supreme Court's "constitutional law" closer to the Constitution, and to bring power closer to the sovereign people who ratified it.

Roberts's views on the hot-button issues that come before the Supreme Court are unknown. But by all accounts, he has a brilliant legal mind, a judicious temperament, and generally conservative views. He will, almost certainly, be an improvement on his predecessor.

Prior to his appointment, Democrats were urging the president to pick a "consensus" nominee. This was always a trap. Whether a nominee counts as a consensual choice depends, after all, on whether the Democrats choose to accept him. Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois has already declared that Roberts is "controversial." Translation: If Durbin rejects Bush's choice of Roberts, Bush and Roberts are the divisive ones. In truth, Roberts is as well-respected a nominee--with as much support from Democratic legal heavyweights--as a Republican president could possibly pick. He was confirmed by unanimous consent to his current position on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. But if Bush is not spoiling for a fight, neither is he shrinking from one.

Other Democrats pledged to conduct thorough hearings on Roberts. By all means. It would be useful to hear Judge Roberts explain his judicial philosophy. Our own view is that the chief qualification for a justice is a ...