Roberts wonderfully muddy on Roe

Well, everyone is going to have a field day with Roberts on Roe. He already has contradictory statements on the topic which will allow him to take the "will not overturn" track and still not scare the living hell out of the President's conservative supporters who are adament about overturning Roe. To wit:

1990
"The court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion ... finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution," the brief said.

2001
"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

Prediction: He passes.

HT NY Times

Update
I think a small clarification is in order on my part after reading Beldar's comment and Sean's post. Based off of the two quotes above, I personally have no idea where Roberts' will fall on Roe, and I wouldn't expect him to tell the Senate how he'd rule on a hypothetical case. And that's the beauty of those two quotes-it gives him wiggle room on Roe. Could the 2001 comment mean that he'd follow precedent in his role as an apellate judge but have no bearing on his decision as a Supreme Court justice? Perhaps. Could it also mean that he wouldn't touch Roe as a justice? Again, perhaps. Personally, I think that, as a Supreme Court Justice, he would probably be closer to the 1990 statement, which is why I welcome the seeming contradiction-with it he has the ability to assuage potential enemies on both sides of the aisle.