Judge Roberts

I don't know much about Roberts, but I like his response to Sen. Schumer, found at Townhall.com:

My own judicial philosophy begins with an appreciation of the limited role of a judge in our system of divided powers. Judges are not to legislate and are not to execute the laws. . . . My judicial philosophy accordingly insists upon some rigor in ensuring that judges properly confine themselves to the adjudication of the case before them, and seek neither to legislate broadly not to administer the law generally in deciding that case.

Deciding the case . . . . requires an essential humility grounded in the properly limited role of an undemocratic judiciary in a democratic republic, a humility reflected in doctrines of deference to legislative policy judgments and embodied in the often misunderstood term “judicial restraint.” That restraint does not mean that judges should not act against the popular will. . . .[T]he framers expected them to be discerning the law, not shaping policy. That means the judges should not look to their own personal views or preferences in deciding the cases before them. Their commission is no license to impose those preferences from the bench.

This answer did not satsfy Schumer, of course; he voted against him for the appeals court. Schumer, et al, are committed to an unconstitutional policy-making role for the courts.

I'd like to hear more about Roberts's hermeneutic: that's the key! That and the fortitude to remain committed to it.