The American public, including those it chooses to represent it in Congress and elsewhere, holds a nearly impossible standard for those it asks to be its judges.

They should be fair, impartial, learned and, well, think as we do.

So the possibility that John Roberts, who has finished undergoing Senate scrutiny last week as a nominee for chief justice, will find a way to satisfy everyone is almost nil.

Still, given the tightrope he had to walk, Roberts made a good accounting of himself in his appearance before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee.

He declined to be boxed in on specific issues, a pattern well established by previous nominees, both liberal and conservative. But he said over and over again that he respects precedent and that he has no desire to impose his personal thinking or religion on the decisions of the court.

He also suggested that he understands the importance of a balance of power within the federal government and the right of Congress to set precedent and law.

Given President Bush's well-established desire to appoint a conservative to the high court, Roberts represents about as tempered a choice as senators can expect. He presented himself as a thoughtful, incremental conservative with none of the fiery determination of an Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas to impose their own political philosophy on the work of the court.

(Although it must be noted that Thomas also said nice things about the importance of precedent during his confirmation hearing, then went directly on to vote to overturn the longstanding Roe v. Wade ruling.)

There is always the unlikely possibility that an unexpected aspect to Roberts, his legal thinking or his career may emerge before the Senate takes its final vote, which is expected this week.

But based on his performance, there is no reason the Senate should not confirm him and set into motion what likely will be decades of experience under the "Roberts Court."