Attempting to forestall White House fears that his writings on behalf of the Solicitor General’s office would be cited as evidence of his personal views, Judge Roberts talked about his experience representing clients against the government, and suggested that any party can win a legal dispute if it has the law on its side. It isn’t that simple, of course, but Judge Roberts (like most other candidates for judicial office) wasn’t likely to acknowledge that personal views shape judicial philosophies that, in turn, help determine which party wins and which loses.

Judge Roberts invoked a famous phrase -- we are a government of laws and not of men -- and emphasized "the rule of law," which a dutiful judge divines from the texts "without fear or favor." He expressed appreciation for rights and liberties. He compared a judge to an umpire, although the more apt analogy might have been the Commissioner of Baseball, given the power to issue a final interpretation of the law that comes with a Supreme Court seat.

Judge Roberts’ statement was mercifully short and calculatedly uncontroversial. Its careful lack of substance is likely to be repeated in the answers he gives to the questions that will begin tomorrow. It will be interesting to see whether any senator is sufficiently skilled in the art of questioning to provoke a meaningful response.