The death penalty, inmate sentencing and conditions of confinement are just a few of the topics that John Roberts will face now that he has been sworn in as the new Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. And while many have questioned exactly which way Roberts will vote on inmate rights issues, it is almost impossible to guess definitely whether Roberts will stay conservative or become a moderate vote.
According to Senator John Cornyn (R, TX), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Roberts has been widely known for his wise contributions in the courtroom over his career. Cornyn described Roberts as "an exceptional judge, brilliant legal mind and a man of outstanding character" in a release.
But despite his reputation, David Fathi, of the American Civil Liberties Union National Prison Project simply sees Roberts as a one-for-one replacement for Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
Critical Of Roberts? Not yet.
Berman has a similar view of Roberts' confirmation to Rehnquist's seat, and notes that the court does shift depending on the Chief Justice.
So what does the confirmation of John Roberts mean for the Supreme Court  and inmate rights?
According Berman it's hard to tell because Roberts hasn't argued many cases that dealt exclusively with inmate rights.
"Roberts is very much a blank slate because criminal justice is not his practiced area," Berman said. "While he has done pro-bono work, and he is a wide-ranging practitioner, he only has a smattering of experience in criminal justice."
While Roberts has worked on a number of cases  more than 30 - before the Supreme Court, his beliefs concerning inmate rights are hard to gauge. Roberts has spent time arguing cases for both the state and the individual  and has argued for both the liberal and conservative angles of legal cases.
For many legal analysts, Roberts' limited experience with cases concerning inmate rights raise questions about what his future rulings will be in this area.
Although Roberts has argued before the Supreme Court on prisoner-related cases, he was working as an Assistant Solicitor General or a Deputy Solicitor General for some of them. Because he was usually working for the government  making it hard to determine what his personal opinions are on these issues.
The analysis of Roberts gets even more complicated once these cases are examined.
While Roberts did argue on Hudson's behalf, his arguments were amicus curiae for the Department of Justice in support of Hudson's case.
Larry Spalding, Legislative Staff Counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, believes that these cases like Hudson vs. McMillian don't necessarily indicate anything about Roberts' ideology in particular even though he once worked on a death-penalty case for free.
or was he assigned to those cases?" Spalding said. "Law firms do pro-bono work in that area all the time."
Roberts was employed as a lawyer at the Hogan & Hartson law firm while working on many pro bono cases. In particular, Roberts argued one pro bono death penalty case involving John Ferguson, a man accused of killing eight people in Florida. The Ferguson case has been touted as one of the most infamous mass murder cases in Florida, and Spalding notes that although Roberts worked on the case, he spent a miniscule amount of time on it compared to the other attorneys.
"He has only served 25 hours on a death penalty case. I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter if you believe in the death penalty or not," Spalding said. "Because once you serve on a death penalty case, you realize the system is still faulty. No matter what your personal beliefs are, you have that epiphany  but I just wonder if you can have that epiphany in 25 hours."
For Berman, however, he will watch Roberts closely and hope that he makes fair choices in criminal cases.
"Part of this whole thing is that we need to be particularly attentive to his first sets of cases so we have more insight into his approach to criminal justice issues,” Berman said. “He may start very conservative  and who knows? The one thing I want to keep an eye on is his past record with the elaborate and complicated jurisprudence around the 8th Amendment and the death penalty."
Roberts adds that it's possible Roberts could make fair decisions because of his limited experience with criminal rights.
Despite the speculation surrounding the confirmation of Roberts, it no longer matters now that he holds a lifelong seat on the bench.
"Right now," said Berman, "It's a lot of speculation  it's somewhat remarkable. It's hard to imagine that they could have picked someone with less criminal justice experience. All we can do is hope that he is fair and balanced  and not an ideologue as many fear."