[At the same time, there is a growing pile of tidbits, in Roberts' opinions and in the Reagan-era documents dribbling out of the White House, that indicates he has strongly held and far-right views on major frontsÃ¢â‚¬Â°abortion, religion, and executive power. There's ammunition for principled opposition to be mined here. But the key attribute Roberts lacks from the point of view of the legal liberals, at least on the record, is an overarching, burn-the-house-down judicial philosophy. As a result, proponents of judicial restraintÃ¢â‚¬Â°an approach to the law that's become as fashionable among liberals as conservativesÃ¢â‚¬Â°are eager to embrace him as one of their own. Leftish advocates of restraint celebrate justices who don't reach out beyond the facts of a case to decide more than they need to and who respect existing Supreme Court precedent. They wrinkle their noses at justices who overtly seek to impose a rightward agenda (Antonin Scalia) and are willing to jettison past decisions to do it (Clarence Thomas). Roberts has never declared himself one of the bad guys, Sunstein pointed out hopefully in a recent piece in the New Republic . Instead he has styled himself as deliberate, lawyerly, process-oriented. His opinions on the D.C. Circuit court of appeals] avoid broad pronouncements, ... They do not try to reorient the law.