That's one of the biggest problems with the federal courts, IMO. Some conservatives claims that Dem presidents NEVER "accidentally" appoint a conservative judge. That's not true. It hasn't happened much in recent years, but occasionally they do end up with a stealth conservative (in fact, I think most of the most outspoken anti-New Deal SCOTUS judges was a Woodrow Wilson appointee)
However, I have seen ZERO examples of a federal judge that "started off" reliably liberal and slowly drifted right over the years. It's happened to a handful of elected politicians (mostly in the south, I'm pretty sure I know the reasons why they moved rightward) but not for federal judges. Unfortunately there are MANY examples of judges who "started off" pretty conservative and became insane Marxists by the end of their tenure.
IMO, this is one of the biggest reasons why judges should not get a lifetime appointment to the bench. I think these guys get drunk with power and bask over the mainstream media applauding them for correcting "injustices" in America by enacting new unconstitutional "rights" out of thin air. At the very least, the judges should get terms like anyone else and their tenure would have be renewed every 10 years (even if we didn't go the elected route, it would at least require the Senate to reappoint them and judges that went rogue like Earl Warren would be subjected to scrutiny.)
I think you are correct. This is the reason for Roberts' betrayal. He wants to be spoken of in reverential terms the same way libs speak of Earl Warren. I don't think anybody "has something" on him. He is captive to his own ego and vanity.
That cocktail party thing is a big problem. Damn peer pressure. It’s like friggin kids stuff!!
I’m not sure that was the problem with Roberts though. I think he is too clever for his own good and full of himself.