So suggests E.J. Dionne:

Consider how Roberts’s approach contrasts with what the court did in Bush v. Gore , the 2000 decision that made George W. Bush president. Justices David Souter and Stephen Breyer were desperately seeking consensus. They agreed with the pro-Bush judges that the recount in Florida should be conducted under uniform standards. But they insisted that Florida be given a chance to have the recount.
The court’s narrow and — let’s call it what it was — partisan majority told Souter and Breyer to get lost. Five justices wanted to end the thing and make Bush president. Imagine how much bitterness would have been avoided (and how respect for the rule of law would have been enhanced) if the court had instead sought, in Roberts’s words, “greater coherence and agreement about what the law is.”
No one can know how consistently Roberts will apply the principles he laid out in his Georgetown speech. The straight 5-to-4 ideological split last week on police searches was not encouraging. But if Roberts lives up to his Georgetown principles, he will justify all the votes cast for his confirmation by moderates and liberals. More important, he will win a place in history as the chief justice who ended the judicial wars.