Roberts argued 24 cases before the SC. Now of course, as you pointed out, that was his job, but I'd be very curious to see what he argued in those 24 SC cases. If he was knowledgeable enough to make strict constructionist arguments, then why wouldn't he make decisions based on the same as an SC judge.
Hard to imagine a lawyer being hired who doesn't believe in the Constitution who makes strict Constitutional arguments before the SC.
Those 24 cases would say a lot about Roberts.
We can hope, but time will prove.
"Hard to imagine a lawyer being hired who doesn't believe in the Constitution who makes strict Constitutional arguments before the SC."
There's where you're wrong. There are plenty of lawyers who do just that. How many on the left argued for states' rights, then federalism, when it came to gay marriage, and on abortion can turn on a dime and argue that Roe is right and incorporation's the greatest?