Judge Roberts and the Rule of Law

During the confirmation hearing on his nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Roberts stated that "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." 

Judge Roberts seems like he would make a very capable Supreme Court Justice, but I would like to note that his statement suggests the ultimate embrace of the rule of law (as opposed to the instrumentalist conception of law now dominant on both sides of the culture war divide).  Given that Judge Roberts is Catholic, is there a problem in the manner with which he pronounces his "personal views" to be no obstacle to his full and faithful application of Roe?  After all, even a rule of law judge may have to wrestle with the prospect of recusal, a possibility not suggested by his stated position.  Given our discussions last week regarding the possible nomination of Alberto Gonzales (here, here, here, here, and here), I would expect pro-life groups to issue statements opposing the confirmation of Roberts.  Instead, they appear to be lining up in support, focusing on anti-Roe positions that Roberts staked out as a government lawyer.

So what's going on here?  Three possibilities:  1) Has the pro-life lobby embraced an inflated vision of the rule of law (where deference to the law trumps everything, even the need for conscientious objection)?  2) Was opposition to Gonzales grounded in his wishy-washy conservatism on non-abortion issues?  or 3) Do pro-lifers assume that Roberts was being disingenuous during his confirmation hearing?

Rob