The Manchurian Conservative?

A reader offers a very interesting, if way-out, theory in reply to my criticism of John Roberts and his conservative supporters:

The question of Robert’s commitment to pro-life conservatism cannot be reduced to his statement in 2003, when he appeared before the Judiciary Committee. His assertion that Roe was settled law did not necessarily imply that he would not vote to overturn Roe as a Supreme Court Justice. At the time, he was being confirmed for an appellate judicial position. Since Roe is binding on the appellate courts, Roberts was obligated to follow its precedent. A Supreme Court decision that has been undisturbed for nearly thirty years constitutes settled law.

His statement that his personal views would not preclude him from following Roe may have meant that his duty to apply the law would not be undermined by his personal pro-life views.

Roberts could be a stealth conservative nominee who was groomed for the Supreme Court over a period of many years. After the Bork and Thomas fiascos, it is conceivable that conservatives within the party decided to develop future nominees and instructed them not to generate a paper trail which could later be used against them. This would explain why, as Ann Coulter has pointed out, Roberts has not voiced a single controversial opinion in his legal career. My theory, of course, presupposes that there are brilliant conservative strategists in the GOP.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 23, 2005 11:12 AM | Send