He is a former clerk of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a former judge on the U.S. Appeals court of Washington and one of the people who advised Bush during the 2000 Florida recount. On Tuesday, we learned John G. Roberts is the man chosen to replace Sandra Day O’Connor as associate justice of the Supreme Court.

Roberts’ confirmation hearing will be the first for the Supreme Court in the Internet age. This means people who disagree with him ideologically will dig up things from his personal life — some of them true and some of them not — and spread it all over the Internet.

We don’t feel that Roberts’ nomination should be decided in a smear campaign. He should be judged based on his record, and one of the issues he needs to answer is his interpretation of the constitution when it comes to abortion.

In 1991, he co-wrote a brief that stated, “We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.”

In 2003, during his confirmation hearing for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Roberts said, “Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land.

There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.”

Clearly, both statements contradict each other; therefore, he needs to explain himself.

In 2003, he was in a situation where making a statement similar to the one he had made in 1991 would put his nomination in jeopardy. This brings up the question of whether his interpretations of the Constitution change based on the circumstances he is in or are principled.

Whether anyone agrees with Roberts’ ideology or not, the process of how he came to these conclusions is legitimate to question in a confirmation hearing. And he should be required to answer such questions.

Justice Clarence Thomas, during his confirmation hearing, refused to answer certain questions saying, “Enough is enough, I’m not going to allow myself to be further humiliated in order to be confirmed.”

He was confirmed by the narrowest margin in Supreme Court history.

In the case of Thomas, he was dealing with personal attacks against him — which we don’t condone. Law professor Anita Hill had accused him of sexual harassment.

Roberts should not be granted the same leeway given to Thomas. He needs to clarify himself on the abortion issue.