Um... I seem to remember one such stealth nominee, named Clarence Thomas. Roberts' record is much less stealthy than Thomas'. What she is really insisting is that we can't tell Roberts' opinions from GHW Bush's. But he went out of his way to argue against Stare Decisis, exceeding even what his boss, Ken Starr, argued.
But he went out of his way to argue against Stare Decisis
Please support this statement from the record.
How true is that, really? At his confirmation hearings, an article from The New Republic was quoted, which states,
"Far from being a judicial activist, Thomas has repeatedly criticized the idea that judges should strike down laws based on their personal understanding of natural rights. Far from being bizarre or unpredictable, Thomas's view of natural rights is deeply rooted in constitutional history. Like many liberals, Thomas believes in natural rights as a philosophical matter, but unlike many liberals, he does not see natural law as an independent source of rights for justices -- for judges to discover and enforce."
Thomas himself agreed with that characterization.