Judge Roberts and the Rule of Law

Rob offers three possibilities as to why pro-life groups are lining up behind Roberts when they had reservations about Gonzales given Roberts' confirmation testimony:  "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."  I'd like to tease out the third possibility and ask my fellow bloggers and readers a question.  Rob's third possibility was "Do pro-lifers assume that Roberts was being disingenuous during his confirmation hearing?"  Is it disingenuous to answer in the way Judge Roberts answered given the fact that Roe's issue (defined as can a state or DC outlaw abortion) will not come before the DC Circuit as long as Roe is on the books?  If the issue is what restrictions can be placed on abortion, Roe is not the settled law having been supeceded in large measure by Casey (which allows a judge opposed to the consitutional abortion license leeway) and Carhart.  Could it be the Judge Roberts, in answering the question before the judiciary committee, was following in the footsteps of St. Thomas More?  In "A Man for All Seasons," More's daughter Margaret informs More of the oath, and she is surprised when More responds that he will take it if he is able.  He wanted to look at the words, suggesting that words matter, and if he can escape imprisonment and martyrdom by signing the oath, he will.  What do you think?  Is it possible that Roberts was following More's lawyering footsteps and parsing his words carefully but not disingenuously?

Michael S.