I don't think that Roberts is a betrayal of "pro-life" groups. He made his acceptance of "privacy rights" by pointing out the specific type of privacy rights the constitution mentions - freedom of speech, searches and seizures, etc. He indicated that precedent should be given proper weight but he did not say how you decide how much weight is proper in any given circumstance. I think he will do fine.
When Roberts was first put up it was said he was a practicing Roman Catholic and his wife was a strong advocate for pro-life issues. I don't recall him recanting any belief in God. I don't recall him swearing before democratic senators that he would blindly uphold abortion. I don't recall roberts saying he would reinstate partial birth abortion.
This is nonsense.
The religious right has been smarting for a fight since they lost power in the 1990's. They look at the left's ability to be able to rule over beleivers and non-beleivers by judical fiat and they LUST after this power.
They are like ants driven mad at a picnic by the scent of food but are unable to find it.
As I have said before on this forum Christ told the apostles YE SHALL NOT r\excercise authority as the gentiles do. Read this as: THOU SHALT NOT (This is a command not a request) make yourself as carnal rulers exerting authority over people to make them walk as if they are beleivers when they beleive not.
The Roman Catholic Church did this for 1200 years and killed with impunity all that disagreed with them saved or unsaved. Then there was supposesdly a reformation (which we shall not discuss here) but now the children of the reformation areno longer satisfied with their lot and want to rule the world or at least the US with impunity like the catholic church once did.
How can you do and preach what Christ plainly says YE SHALL NOT -- it is becasue you do not beleiver his words or follow him you instead chose what you want to beleive -- this is exactly what Christ said of the pharisees.
No, he's not a betrayal. What he is is an unknown quantity, at least to me. Certainly, Bush thinks Roberts is a conservative, but if he's a sleeper liberal, like Souter, then we've made (another) monumental mistake. That's why I would have preferred Scalia-he's a know quantity who can be counted on to get it right. But regardless of Roberts, I hope Bush doesn't go soft with the next nominee.