Tough on crime = liberal?

The Inquirer ran a story this morning touting signs of John Roberts’ possible “liberalism.” According to the story, one of the pieces of evidence for his alleged liberalism was his advising President Reagan to strongly and unequivocally denounce abortion clinic bombers when working as White House legal counsel.

As a legal adviser to President Ronald Reagan, Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. joined a scathing denunciation of abortion-clinic bombers and urged Reagan to stay out of an effort to post tributes to God in Kentucky schools.

Roberts’ advice, in documents obtained by the Inquirer Washington Bureau before their public release later this month, might help him counter critics who portray him as a doctrinaire conservative. Abortion-rights groups and groups that advocate a clear separation between church and state oppose his nomination.

[…]

“The president unequivocally condemns such acts of violence and believes that those responsible should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,” their draft reply said. “No matter how lofty or sincerely held the goal, those who resort to violence to achieve it are criminals… .

“Neither the cause that these misguided individuals mistakenly believed they were serving, nor the target of their violence, will in any way be considered to mitigate the seriousness of their offense against our laws.”

Now, call me paranoid, but isn’t the irresistible implication here that it’s chiefly liberals who are opposed to the bombing of abortion clinics? If strongly favoring the full prosecution of clinic bombers is taken to be prima facie evidence of Roberts’ “liberal streak” doesn’t it follow that the Inquirer thinks that conservatives generally favor the bombing of abortion clinics? Or at least aren’t really strongly opposed to it?