With the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, President Bush has demonstrated sound judgment in doing one of the most important things our presidents do: appoint Supreme Court justices. In Judge John Roberts, President Bush has chosen an honorable man who will faithfully apply and interpret the Constitution, draw upon American rather than foreign law, and resist the Court's unfortunate tendency to legislate. We can't ask for more.

To find such a nominee in today's political climate who has somehow managed to avoid accumulating legions of enemies in Washington, academia and the press while building an outstanding record of accomplishment and public service is almost a miracle. We should be happy.

I met Mr. Roberts briefly more than 20 years ago in the Reagan administration when he was an assistant to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith and later President Reagan. Many others and I were new U.S. attorneys at the time. My colleagues from those days thought and still think very highly of John Roberts. From news stories, it seems that his colleagues throughout his entire career hold that view, including his opponents who deem him a most worthy and unfailingly courteous advocate. In that respect, his reputation is similar to that of our own U. S. District Judge Matthew Perry, whose incomparable courtesies and considerations for every attorney and litigant in his court have left him without peer or critic. It is a rare accomplishment.

After law school at Harvard, John Roberts clerked for Judge Henry Friendly of the Second Circuit and later for Justice William Rehnquist. After his time at the Department of Justice and the White House, he entered private practice. Later he returned to the Department of Justice as principal deputy to Solicitor General Kenneth Starr, which gave him the opportunity to argue many cases before the Supreme Court.

Two years ago, upon his nomination by President Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 152 members of the D.C. bar wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee to note that Judge Roberts was "one of the very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation, with a deserved reputation as a brilliant writer and oral advocate." Signers ranging from Democratic lawyers Lloyd Cutler and Seth Waxman to former President George H. W. Bush's White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray cited his "unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness." He was confirmed unanimously by the Senate.

As to his current nomination, the highly respected National Journal has said that "John Roberts seems a good bet to be the kind of judge we should all want to have -- all of us, that is, who are looking less for congenial ideologues than for professionals committed to the impartial application of the law."

For its part, the White House has demonstrated an unprecedented level of consultation with senators from both parties, consulting with more than 70 senators, including every member of the Judiciary Committee and more than two out of three Democrats. In these most positive circumstances, we have every right to expect the Senate to provide a civil hearing, a floor debate in which all views are heard, and a timely vote so that the Supreme Court can convene for its fall term on Oct. 3 with all justices in place.

In sum, Judge Roberts is honored and respected for possessing a keen intellect, sound judicial temperament, and maintaining the highest standards of the bench and bar. He has been praised for his extensive experience, sound legal judgment, and fair- mindedness.

He possesses all the personal and professional qualities to be an outstanding justice. We should thank our lucky stars that he -- and men and women like him -- are willing and prepared to accept the limitations, pressures, and enormous responsibilities of these positions, as well as the merciless process which leads to them.