ROBERTS CONFIRMED

In a 78-22 Senate vote Thursday morning, Judge John G. Roberts Jr. was confirmed as the 17th chief justice of the United States. \nRoberts was sworn in at the White House Thursday afternoon by Justice John Paul Stevens, acting chief justice since the death of William Rehnquist earlier this month. \nRoberts, who grew up in Long Beach, Ind., will succeed the long-serving Rehnquist, for whom Roberts served as a clerk in the early 1980s. \nThe vote among Indiana senators for Roberts was split -- Republican Sen. Richard Lugar voted in favor of confirming Roberts, while Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh voted against him. When Roberts begins his lifelong term, it will be the first time in 11 years a new justice sits on the Supreme Court. \nFormer Rehnquist clerk and IU law professor Joseph \nHoffmann said he is pleased with the Senate's confirmation.\n"I think he was an excellent choice for chief justice," Hoffmann said. "He has the right kind of judicial temperament."\nHoffmann called Roberts modest and cautious and said he respects precedent.\n"Those three characteristics are what it means to be judicious," he said. "He understands the law needs to evolve and not just change with every judge. He understands he wasn't put on the court to change the law."\nHoffmann's colleague, Craig Bradley, was hesitant to praise Roberts, but said he will make a good chief justice.\n"I think he's as good a choice as we're going to get from (the Bush) administration," said Bradley, a former Rehnquist clerk and IU law professor.\nBradley said he doesn't believe Roberts is as conservative as most Democrats fear. \n"It looks to me that Roberts is going to respect precedent," he said. "I think (President) Bush had been assured by various conservatives (about Roberts' conservative ideology). I'm not sure that Roberts is going to bear out that belief."\nHoffmann and Bradley have both met Roberts at various social functions. They said he is a likeable person.\nRoberts served as a U.S. appeals judge prior to his nomination to the high court. Before his federal judgeship, Roberts was a U.S. attorney who won 25 of 39 cases he argued.\nAt 50, Roberts will be the youngest chief justice since 1801, when John Marshall presided over the Court. Marshall was 45 at that time. \nAll 55 Senate Republicans voted in favor of Roberts' confirmation. Of the Senate Democrats, 22, including Bayh, voted against confirmation.\nBayh said in a statement he was unable to vote in favor of Roberts' confirmation because he believed Roberts needed further clarification on issues including women's rights and discrimination.\n"All we can do is assume, because when presented with the opportunity to disavow the positions in his memos, Roberts refused," Bayh said.\nHoffmann said he believes individuals like Bayh are missing the point. \nHoffmann said Roberts respects precedent, and so Bayh and others shouldn't fear Roberts becoming a judicial activist.\nBradley agreed, saying Roberts won't try to "ruffle any feathers." But Roberts will act more like former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor than his predecessor Rehnquist, Bradley said.\n"Rehnquist had a real agenda when he came on the court ... The Democrats had control of the Supreme Court before Rehnquist was confirmed. Rehnquist had more of an agenda than Roberts will," he said.\nAndrew Lauck, chairman of the IU College Republicans, said he is excited about the confirmation. \n"Having Roberts on the court and knowing he will be a strong conservative justice is a great victory for the president. Roberts is young, so he picked a justice that will be on the court for a long time," he said.\nLauck said he is surprised Democratic senators didn't try to mount a filibuster against a confirmation vote.\nBut IU College Democrats President Jared Fallick isn't surprised with the way the Democrats handled Roberts' confirmation.\n"Part of the reason why he went so quickly is because there wasn't a lot known about him," he said. "There's a conservative president, and Rehnquist was conservative, so I don't think having John Roberts on the court will shift the balance."\nO'Connor vacancy\nNow that Roberts has been confirmed, the president will shift his focus to find a nominee to fill the seat left by O'Connor's resignation this summer.\nHoffmannn said he thinks it is unlikely the next nominee will be another white male. \nBradley said he is not sure who the president will nominate, but believed current Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is the likely frontrunner.\nO'Connor's resignation leaves Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg as the lone female justice on the high court.\nLike Hoffmann, Lauck believes Bush won't nominate a white male. \n"My guess is it will be a Hispanic justice, or a female justice, especially since it was a female seat," Lauck said. "I don't think any nomination Bush makes will be as moderate as the Democrats want."\nDawn Johnsen, IU professor of law and former acting assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, offered advice to those opposed to Roberts.\n"Those who are concerned that the Roberts Court will move the country in the wrong direction need immediately to focus attention on President Bush's next nominee to replace Justice O'Connor, who sits at the middle of the court and has cast the deciding vote on so many issues critical to Americans' lives and liberties," Johnsen said in a statement.\nFallick agrees. \n"The real fight will be for Justice O'Connor's seat," Fallick said. "I think right now President Bush can't start a big political fight because of his poor approval rating. Though, with any luck, he will pick a consensus pick."\nO'Connor resigned from the court in July, but will keep her seat until her successor is named. The court begins its session Monday.\n-- The Associated Press \ncontributed to this report.\nROBERTS' VIEWS AS QUOTED FROM confirmation HEARINGS\nON Abortion:\n"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as (Planned Parenthood vs.) Casey." \nON Affirmative Action:\n"Yes, I was in an administration that was opposed to quotas. Opposition to quotas is not the same thing as opposition to affirmative action."\nOn THE 'right to die':\n"I will not take to the court whatever personal views I have -- and I appreciate the sensitivity involved -- they won't be based on my personal views. They'll be based on my understanding of the law"