Roberts and Roe and Rove

With all the hue and cry about Judge Roberts and his nomination, I think there are still a few points yet to be made.

First, despite what they would have their own Christian right supporters believe, the last thing Bush and Rove really want is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Republicans have been gaining support and money based on their supposed distate for Roe for decades. if the decision is actually overturned, they would be faced with a real governing responsibility about what to do. If states started outlawing abortion, there would be a groundswell among the now understandably complacent pro-choice majority. The political force would switch sides. In other words, the Republicans would rather have the issue to campaign on than the actual victory.

Second, Roberts is above all a law man. He is, by all appearances, not an idealogue. He believes in the rule of law. And a belief in the rule of law translates into a belief in precedent. This belief is all over his jurisprudence. Here, for instance, is something from Ramaprakash v. F.A.A.,
displayTruncatedTitle("346 F.3d 1121") 346 F.3d 1121, 1124 (D.C. Cir. 2003), Roberts' very first decision on the D.C. Circuit: “[A]gency action is arbitrary and capricious if it departs from agency precedent without explanation. Agencies are free to change course as their expertise and experience may suggest or require, but when they do so they must provide a ‘reasoned analysis indicating that prior policies and standards are being deliberately changed, not casually ignored.’” (citations omitted).

Third, Roberts is a Bush I man. George H.W. Bush tried to get him a seat on the D.C. Circuit, but could not get him confirmed. Bush I appointed Clarence Thomas, but he also appointed David Souter. Roberts is too smart to be Thomas. I think he'll more likely be like Souter.