I went to the right wing NewsMax site and found a prominent link to an article excerpted below, regarding how John Roberts may have provided the basis for reversal of Roe v Wade.

I listened to a lot of John Roberts testimony. I heard Roberts explain the law of Precedent, and the law of Reversal. Roberts ticked off the “elements” of the doctrine of reversal, elements which the Court must apply to every case in deciding whether to reverse an earlier precedent.

Those elements are neutral - they apply all the time, no matter what the case is, somewhat like standing Military General Orders, or like the ubiquitous “Wipe your feet”.

The Court acts under a set of rules. Roberts explained the rules of reversal in response to questions about whether his attitudes about upholding or reversing Roe v Wade.

Roberts also ticked off the rules for Upholding cases. There are a similar set of rules that cause the Court to refuse to reverse a case.

Roberts gave equal testimonial weight to the rules to Uphold as he did to the rules to Reverse.

——-

Roberts appeared to be a centrist scholarly judge, and he rejected any hint of activism. He explicitly denied that judges’ political or social preferences should guide their decisions.

If I were a Right Winger, I’d be disappointed.

———–

Let’s revisit the David Souter confirmation hearings for a minute. Souter was Bush I’s appointee.

Souter was asked to discuss his views of liberal Justice William Brennan. Brennan was one of the main architects of the liberal Supreme Court decisions of the sixties and early seventies.

I recall being stunned at the glowing praise Souter bestowed upon the memory of William Brennan and his judicial legacy. I wondered if Souter was a liar trying to bull—- the Committee into thinking he was not a wingnut.

Well, Souter was not a liar. Souter has turned out to be an appealing moderate voice on a Court that is very conservative by the standards of the last 50 years. On issues of social liberty, Souter is similar to Brennan.

———

And now we move to John Roberts.

Roberts was asked to talk about the justice he admired most. His answer was Judge Robert Jackson, as I recall.

Roberts talked about Jackson’s judicial attitude being so very different from what people expected from his role as a pro-government activist attorney general. He talked about respect for how Jackson put on a different hat once on the Court.

And Roberts mentioned that in one case, Jackson even voted to overturn a doctrine that Jackson had advocated as Attorney General!

I heard loud and clear what Roberts was saying. He was saying I will play the role of a judge, not a politician, not an advocate for anyone’s point of view. I will decide cases based on the accepted judicial doctrines, and I will not inject my personal preferences into the case. And, do not expect that my decisions will be consistent with my earlier writings when I was an employee of a Republican administration.

William Rehnquist was one of Jackson’s Supreme Court law clerks, if I recall. Since Roberts is nominated to replace Rehnquist, it’s possible Roberts was announcing somewhat of a kindred spirit with Rehnquist.

——————

But Rouberts Could Have gone so much further if he wanted to telegraph a similarity with Rehnquist.

Isn’t it interesting that Roberts did NOT declare that Rehnquist was his most admired judge? Rehnquist had over thirty years on the Court and was one of the most influential Justices in history.

———

My take: Roberts told us he would be a right-leaning moderate.

He does not have an expansive view of the role of the judiciary to cure social ills. He would not decide cases based on Republican doctrine. He will be in the broad middle. But due to his reserved vision, he will come down on the Right on issues where the court is asked to expand the law.

But he would vote with the Left to preserve some of the old doctrines because they have become settled law and the arguments for reversal are not strong enough.

He will not reverse old cases in order to impose a social or political agenda.

Let’s get him confirmed and move on.

UPDATE: After the second day of hearings, no change in my view. Roberts didn’t give the nervous theocrats on the committee anything to cling to either. They lectured Roberts about the 10 Commandments and other religious things, and then pushed him, and got nowhere.

John Roberts Provides Basis for Reversing Roe v. Wade Abortion Case

…

Specter, who backs abortion, then tried to trap Roberts by getting him to say new facts and information hasn’t made the Roe precedent one that should be reversed.

“I feel the need to stay away from a discussion of particular cases,” Roberts said.

Again, Specter asked, “Well, do you see any erosion of precedent as to Roe?”

Roberts declined the trapping question a second time: “Well, again, I think I should stay away from discussions of particular issues that are likely to come before the court again.”

Later, Roberts said providing a “jolt” to the court is sometimes necessary when a bad decision has stood for too long.