Charles Krauthammer: Roberts is no Scalia

Charles Krauthammer on Judge Roberts:

... And Roberts is no Scalia. I think. Like just about everything else we can say about him, this guess is educated only by the meager record, and by Roberts' traditional, conventional life trajectory. And perhaps even by his opening remarks on national television, where he spoke with reverence of the institution to which he has been nominated — from which one might infer (now we're really grasping at straws) — that he might be reluctant to overturn precedent.

But if he is no Scalia, is he an O'Connor — who moved so steadily leftward through her Washington career that she has become a retroactive icon, a paragon of principled conservatism, to liberal advocacy groups today?

We know that Scalia and Thomas would overturn Roe v. Wade tomorrow. As would Rehnquist, for whom Roberts clerked and to whom he is being most closely compared.

O'Connor, on the other hand, not only upheld the abortion precedent, but invented an even more radical constitutional principle to justify her decision. The notorious pronouncement that "at the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life" opened the door to the Texas case ruling anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional, and Massachusetts' legalization of gay marriage on constitutional grounds.

It is almost impossible to imagine Roberts doing something as grand as that. He would not have the audacity. My guess? He upholds Roe, purely for reasons of precedent. And very quietly.

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
Pure conjecture, as Krauthammer readily admits. In contrast, I have heard from strong pro-life people - who, unlike Krauthammer, actually do know something about Judge Roberts - that Roberts is the real deal for conservatives.

So, is Krauthammer getting paid for guessing these days?