Got a few minutes to participate in an impromptu focus group that uses projection exercises? Get some privacy where you can close your eyes and think of John Roberts. Judge John Roberts. Develop a visual image of him in your mind.

OK, how’s it going so far? Can you see him clearly? If not, stop and find a current edition of Newsweek. Study the cover boy.

OK, I sense you now have him fixed in your mind’s eye. Hold on to that image.

Now, with your eyes still closed, also conjure up a visual image of Robert Bork. Having some trouble? If you’re too young to remember him, imagine Ozzie Osborne with a proper haircut. If you’re too old for that to provide a useful cue but can remember Rasputin, that should suffice.

Now, imagine that you are a casting agent working on a new Superman movie, only this time the plot’s about Superman in his middle-age years. But he’s still the man of steel who puts on his red-and-blue tights to dispense justice. You have to cast either John Roberts or Robert Bork in the role. Who gets the part?

See how insightful these focus groups can be?

Here’s another projection exercise: First imagine that John Roberts and Robert Bork are single. Focus groups often require this sort of suspension of reality. That’s why you get paid upwards of $65 to participate. Now imagine that your Aunt Thelma is widowed. But you hear that she has a new beau whom she will be bringing to a family picnic on Labor Day weekend. Whom do you hope shows up on Thelma’s arm, John Roberts or Robert Bork?

Here’s exercise No. 3: Two corporate MBAs are up for promotion to vice president of the company and a huge pay raise. The CEO interviews them and concludes they are intellectual equals. They both have similar résumés and experience. But one seems more handsome and charming. Which one gets the job: Roberts or Bork?

Do you see where all this is going? If you do, here’s your $65. If you don’t, go back to your day job.

Looks and charm count. John Roberts has both. Robert Bork had neither. And that’s why he got “borked,” adding a word to our language in the process.

It may strike you as unfair that handsome or good-looking people have an advantage in life. But they do.

There’s lots of research to back this up. Studies have demonstrated that babies show more interest in attractive faces than homely ones. Others have shown that mothers of attractive children are more protective of their children than are mothers of ugly kids.

The Associated Press reported in April that Federal Reserve Bank analysts concluded that “good-looking people tend to make more money and get promoted more often than those with average looks.” This report said we don’t necessarily discriminate against ugly people. Instead, the good-looking may just possess self-confidence that allows them to charm us out of our socks.

We even associate beauty with justice issues. One study showed research subjects videos of various children kicking dogs. When asked about these incidents, study participants perceived that the actions of attractive kids were justified while the less attractive kids were seen as provocateurs.

That Judge Roberts is attractive seems undeniable. Virtually every profile piece on him makes some reference to his being “handsome” or “good-looking.” Some onlookers seem unwilling to stop with those descriptions. An irreverent blog, “Under Their Robes: News, gossip, and colorful commentary about the federal judiciary,” mentioned Roberts’s attractiveness in a July 2004 report titled “Big Swinging Gavels: The Male Superhotties of the Federal Judiciary.” Judge Roberts was voted the fifth “hottest judge” in the entire federal judiciary a full year before Bush tapped him for the Supremes.

Bush knew it would be hard for his opponents to hate a handsome man. And he knew that a handsome jurist will be just. Don’t we all.

Hill is director of Hill Research Consultants, a Texas-based firm that has polled for GOP candidates and causes since 1988.