I’ve gotten a few emails along these lines:

Dear Jonah,
I have to say that I’m stunned that there hasn’t been any expression of profound disappointment over Bush’s choice of Roberts for Chief Justice.
Although I can understand the political considerations that led Bush to select Roberts, I think Scalia would be a more forceful and influential chief (granting that we don’t really know what we’re getting with Roberts).
I thought the Corner crowd would be all over this, and would share my dismay. Did I miss something?

Me: I can’t speak for the others but I have to say I’m completely untroubled by this. I’m a huge fan of Scalia’s (“that’s litterally true!” — The Couch). But it seems to me that from everything we know of Scalia he’s not temperamentally well-disposed to being Chief Justice. You can’t relish sticking it to your colleagues the way he does and still be expected to quietly build a consensus. The Scalia Court certainly has a wonderful ring to it, but when you factor in his age, the bruising battle that would have to be fought to promote him to Chief — which would not buy us any extra votes on the court — and Roberts’ natural gifts, I think this is the smart play. I don’t hold it against Bush at all that he went this route. I would, however, be quite cross if he appointed Gonzales. The Chief Justice doesn’t get an extra vote. We should be more concerned by the number of conservative votes than who is the captain of the team.