Here is an excellent article on the role of Chief Justice (by profs from Yale Law School). This link was found through an excellent blog: MyDD He also has an essay, by Paul Rosenberg on why Bush's choice of Roberts is, like most of his decisions, inherently unprecedented, wrong, dangerous and audacious.

Were you aware that John Robert's wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts(pictured above) is a partner in a law firm(Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pitman LLP), that facilitates global satellite system projects and is targeting Iraq reconstruction? Article by Margie Burns.

She also plays an active role in an anti-abortion group that ironically calls itself Feminists for Life. She has worked for them pro bono since the mid-nineties. While some of her work is excellent(providing assistance for the poor and pregnant), the bottom line is that she does not believe in 'choice.'

All of this begs the question that if Valerie Plame is 'fair game' to Bush's personal advisor, Karl Rove, shouldn't Jane Roberts be too? Isn't there a serious conflict of interest? If JohnRobert's had to precide over an Iraq-related case, should he have to recuse himself? Is there a national security problem with that senario? What about Roe v Wade? The insider connections are creepy.