The confirmation hearings for U.S. Court of Appeals Judge John G. Roberts, nominated to become the 17th Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, kicked off Monday with little fanfare. But there is no doubt that the upcoming months could very well decide the direction of American jurisprudence for many years to come. It is paramount for the Senate to confirm a chief justice who can bring stability and leadership to the federal judiciary with all deliberate speed, but the stakes are simply too high for the future of this nation merely to confirm Roberts for the sake of speed.

There is no dispute that Roberts is one of the most brilliant legal minds of his generation. His work as a lawyer, whether on behalf of private individuals, corporations or the president of the United States, is extensive and exemplary. Liberals and conservatives who know him describe him as an amicable man with a sense of humor and worthy of respect. But Roberts’ record as a lawyer and his character cannot, on their own, prove his qualifications to become the most visible and important member of the highest court of the land.

Roberts has been under fire from pro-choice advocates since July, when he initially was nominated to replace the retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, for co-authoring a 1991 brief on behalf of the government which argues that there is no Constitutional grounds to justify the Roe v. Wade ruling. While the brief was written to further the federal government’s agenda, it cannot be assumed that the stance against Roe v. Wade is a reflection of Roberts’ judicial philosophy.

Nevertheless, the views expressed in this brief are of great interest for the future of this nation. While the argument over this brief centers around a woman’s right to an abortion, there are far larger implications that exist within this argument.

The Supreme Court’s majority opinion on Roe v. Wade is based on an interpretation of the constitution that acknowledges an implicit right of privacy in the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as an interpretation of the Ninth Amendment that affords the people rights and liberties that are not specifically enumerated in the constitution.

The 1991 brief states that there is nothing in the “text, structure or history of the Constitution” to support such a ruling. Juxtaposed with Roberts’ disdainful reference to a “so-called right of privacy” in a 1981 memo addressed to then U.S. Attorney General William French Smith, serious concerns can be raised. It is important to know whether the court, under the auspices of Roberts as chief justice, will work to suppress the ever-reaching arms of governance and regulation from intruding into the lives of Americans and their homes.

On the other hand, it also is important to know Roberts’ stance on the interstate commerce clause. Should he, as seen in his 2003 dissent in Rancho v. Viejo, take a narrow reading of the pillar of federal regulation, the federal legislature’s powers would be greatly diminished and would wipe out a century of advances on commerce, environmental and labor laws. While proliferation of federal regulation is certainly undesirable, crippling the federal government’s ability to protect the general welfare of the public would be equally unacceptable.

There will be a long and arduous debate over the confirmation of Roberts, which will be followed by another confirmation hearing to replace Justice O’Connor. Above all else, this nation needs open-minded justices who can rise above partisan ideals, give both sides of each and every case a fair hearing, and rule based on their legal philosophy. The Senate must do everything to ensure that all nominees, including Roberts, will rise to the challenge once they are appointed to the court. And the only way to do so is through rigorous, but fair, questioning. As Justice Learned Hand, a prolific American jurist who served in the federal courts for more than four decades, said, the spirit of liberty is the spirit, which is not too sure that it is right. Both the Senate and the Supreme Court justices to come should keep those words near their hearts.