More on Roberts' Rule of Law

According to today's New York Times, Roberts' appellate-confirmation statement about Roe and Casey as precedent "made [him] somewhat suspect in the eyes of some social conservatives."  In general, though, pro-life groups (like other issue groups) don't care about whether Roberts has a consistent theory about the rule of law or conscientious objection.  They want to know whether he's likely to vote overrule or limit Roe and Casey as a justice (which is, of course, a different matter from whether he vowed to follow them while on the court of appeals -- so it wouldn't be disingenuous for him to vote to overrule Roe as a justice).  And it appears that most pro-life groups have confidence that he will vote to overrule them -- much more confidence than with Gonzales.  Roberts is more tied into the conservative movement generally by having served in the Reagan and Bush I Justice Departments and the Reagan White House and by other means.  Perhaps pro-life groups also find it reassuring that Roberts' wife Jane was a vice president of Feminists for Life.   By contrast, I think a lot of social conservatives feared that Gonzales would rise to the top of Bush's list not because of conservative principles but because of his personal friendship with Bush.

But before being too sure about Roberts' ultimate vote on the basic abortion right, conservatives should -- like liberals -- ask him lots of questions about his view of stare decisis (the importance of even the justices following precedent).  As Linda Greenhouse wrote in the Times, Roberts' career as well as his words last night bespeak not just a conservative, but also "someone someone deeply anchored in the trajectory of modern constitutional law, not of someone who felt himself on the sidelines throwing brickbats, nor of someone who felt called to a mission to change the status quo."

Tom B.

UPDATE:  Andrew Sullivan collects examples of "disgruntlement" about Roberts on "the grumpy right."