Not all conservatives in the marketplace of ideas are satisfied that Judge John Roberts will make them happy on the U.S. Supreme Court. That’s because many of them (columnist Ann Coulter comes to mind) are issue oriented instead of understanding that a procedural conservative is their best friend.

   What you might call “procedural conservatives” believe Roberts is a superb choice. Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel for the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., spoke for them this way:

   “I applaud President Bush for keeping his promise to the American people to appoint judges who will interpret the law and not act as super legislators.”

   Columnist Cal Thomas added his voice to this argument, citing Shannen W. Coffin’s essay in National Review for pointing out that Roberts is not a “bench activist.” Coffin, a former Justice Department lawyer and expert on constitutional law, said that Roberts understands that the high court should not seek to solve every social problem the nation faces.

   To be fair to the activist conservatives debating the choice of Roberts, consider the views of Ann Coulter, one of their most vigorous spokespersons. She calls Roberts “a blank slate,” adding, “It means nothing that Roberts wrote briefs arguing for the repeal of Roe v. Wade when he worked for Republican administrations [as deputy solicitor general]. He was arguing on behalf of his client, the United States of America. Roberts has specifically disassociated himself from those cases. . . .” She calls the nomination “A Souter in Roberts’ clothing,” a reference to Justice David Souter, appointed by a Republican president and now part of the court’s liberal bloc.

   But disassociating himself is not, as Coulter implies, repudiating those views. This is an important distinction, especially because it preserves his ability as a judge to decide cases on the law and not emotion. In one of his briefs he argued not that abortion is a terrible thing, but that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided as to constitutional law. It should be noted that were he eventually to be part of a court majority overturning Roe, the decision would not outlaw abortion (legislation from the bench) but instead send the question back to the states (as the Constitution intended).

   Thomas points out that Edward Lazarus, a former law clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun who wrote the majority decision in Roe, now believes that as “a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible.”

   Citing other decisions that Roberts has been involved in on the appeals bench, the Wall Street Journal editorialized this way: “It’s possible that the nominee might not be as willing to overturn precedent as Justices Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, but he seems to be someone with deeper roots in the original Constitution than either Justice Sandra Day O’Connor or Justice Anthony Kennedy..”

   The Journal also added, “All in all, Mr. Bush seems to have made a shrewd choice, one that moves the Court back toward the center while denying opponents easy attack lines.”

   President Bush has urged the Senate to act promptly on the nomination so that the new justice can be sworn in before the high court’s new term begins in October.