A small town in Indiana and a brief filed saying that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided are entirely positive signs on first inspection, but the second reveals only a leaning and not a falling off on one side or the other. This is, of course, by White House design for the public understanding of Judge Roberts. Bush has exhibited his recurrent traits and examining G.W. Bush right now is the only way to know what really is in the heart of Judge Roberts.
Roberts is deliberately without much record. He is deliberately congenial and with friends all around. He is deliberately professionally competent, hard to make controversial – fine. I say "deliberately" on Bush's part – it is unknown if Judge Roberts has achieved his stealth status by his own design or by chance. Seemingly driven, popular success would encourage an individual to remain somewhat vanilla, but great strategists also sometimes hold their tongue and bide their time. We don't know, and that's the point.
The senate will not know. They will goad, they will prod, they will try jumping up and down. But it will be the professional jump up and downers who do the jumping up and down. No one will regard them much. He will be confirmed. It will go through. What does it mean? We don't know, and forgive me, but that's the point.
W knows. More accurately W thinks he knows. But he can't know as much as he would like to – the power remains in Roberts' hands. If Mr. Roberts is as clever as his credentials, he is entirely in command of the situation as soon as the ceremony is over. Because his record is sparse, he has no deeply established line to which he has to – or feels obligated to – stick. But there is one telling factor in Bush's selection and Robert's portfolio – the refuge of every waffler: professionalism.
The hallmark of tenure for Mr. Bush has not been choosing all conservative, pro-life people. While there are genuine indications that there is some real commitment, however modest, to pro-life issues amongst the Bushies, there is a principle that always trumps the consideration of ultimate moral goodness in Bush's selections: professional achievement, or loyalty blended with professional achievement. Condoleezza Rice is "mildly pro-choice." Colin Powell was substantially. Al Gonzales is unable to agree with parental consent for an abortion for a minor. Bush chose these people because they were achievement people with folksie personal stories in overcoming institutional obstacles. He did not choose them based on their heroic moral victories fought at cost against great evils.
Here now is professional Mr. Roberts with all his satchels glorying in plain sight so as to render his lack of public record for moral positions a problem not difficult for Mr. Bush. While the president has some moral convictions, he also regards them as problematic advisers he doesn't always want to consult. He was delighted, no doubt, to discover he could satisfy or at least placate the moral convictions with Mr. Roberts, while quickly and happily setting them down to "unknown" for the public and "I know whut ahm buyin'" for himself.
It is possible, at this point, that Roberts will turn into David Souter. It is possible that he will turn into William Renquist. It is not possible that he will turn into Antonin Scalia. Only W knows enough to have any real idea. And, of course, he won't say. He is going to smile his way through this confirmation process because he knows he's already won it. But the personal victory for the president in making an appointment that gets him through problems does not translate necessarily to victory for the nation.
Colin Powell was a great political move for Bush. He wasn't exactly a victory for conservatism. Conservatism, with the Roberts appointment, is unaware if we have suffered a mild or terrible loss, a mild or terrible victory – and that's not good. Ann Coulter is right: Ambiguity for us usually leads to loss and this is because our very core, our very nature is not ambiguous. Conservatism is a preaching faith and if you can't make disciples you probably don't believe.
When W doesn't have the moral conviction or doesn't want the fight for expressing it publicly, he falls back on "professionalism." We could see this stirring toward a Gonzales appointment. Fortunately enough conscience broke through to end that speculation, but not enough was present for a crusade. We must comment then on what "professionalism" as opposed to, say, "Christianity" means for this new court. There is one other indicator to satcheldom: the bar.
He is a member of the bar cabal. Oh. Ah!
He is part of the mono-party of Washington where all the lawyers think all the lawyers are just fine. Ideologues are not fine if ideology trumps lawyerliness. Whether it is a liberal or conservative veneer – that being necessary and accepted fraternity letters on the T-shirt in a political town – lawyers don't let lawyers get convicted of driving drunk. They don't get rid of each other well. They don't take power out of each other's hands. They always work to perpetuate the institution, increase the judiciary's presence, perpetuate each other's rulings. They play the game. Some wins and some losses are accepted parts of the rules. But at the end of the day, they preserve the system and their tribe.
In short, you have a "strict constructionist" who will not be inclined to change anything about the institution because he is very much of the bar party. Whatever the accepted behavior of the Supreme Court is, you can expect Mr. Roberts to behave expectedly. He is a poor bet for great upheavals. He is a poor bet for large changes or reversing trends. He is a strong bet for artfully and moderately amplifying things the court is already heading for. Bush will be happy with praise for Bush due to such activity. So will magna cum laude Roberts.
Conservatives can not expect, if this model is true, much of any decent change. If this picture holds, Roberts will represent an incremental conservatism and an unwillingness to be grand. If this picture holds, it is a sad day indeed as we are in acute need of grandness.
It's possible though that Mr. Bush "read the soul" of Mr. Roberts and both men know conservative truths that neither man will speak of. It's possible even that this is the desire or even the intent of both. But when decent men are dropped into the morphological cauldron of secular spirits and liberal pressures that is our Supreme Court, they often change and become lesser, more wicked. Especially if they are not fire-breathing to start with. In that case and sense, it is up to us as much to pray for Mr. Roberts now as it was for us to intercede for him yesterday. He could go either way.
So we don't know, W likes it that way, and Mr. Professionalism will be confirmed. In a few years, we shall see what really went on behind the closed doors of heart in W and Mr. Roberts. Until then, the pro-life movement and deeply convicted conservatives should continue to change their tactics away from the hope that great change will be achieved only by electing evangelical presidents who appoint "professional" judges. It is time to all the more forcefully work for removing the power for great sweeping changes from the judiciary, seeing as how only the enemies of the pro-life position are 100 percent assured of being appointed.
Andrew Longman is a Christian by confession and an applied scientist by trade.