WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. pledged Tuesday to bring "modesty and humility" to his job as a justice on the high court, saying the judges did not have a "commission to solve society's problems."
"Judges must be constantly aware that their role, while important, is limited," he wrote in response to a 67-page questionnaire from the Senate. Roberts also reported a personal net worth of $5.2 million, most of it in stocks and mutual funds.
The questionnaire asked Roberts to describe his judicial philosophy, and his response was the first time he had reflected publicly on the role of a justice since he was nominated to the high court.
His answers suggest he would take a conservative, restrained approach to new issues, and that he would be reluctant to sweep aside past Supreme Court rulings.
Roberts used one question on "judicial activism" to echo a theme voiced by President Bush. "It is not part of the judicial function to make the law" from the bench, Roberts said. A judge's job is "simply to decide cases before them according to the rule of law," he said.
Many conservatives have complained in recent years that the Supreme Court has been too willing to make the law on disputed social issues such as abortion, gay rights and the role of religion.
Roberts emphasized that a modest judge would not see his role as one of overturning legal precedents.
"A judge needs the humility to appreciate that he is not necessarily the first person to confront a particular issue," he wrote. "Precedent plays an important role in promoting the stability of the legal system, and a sound judicial philosophy should reflect recognition of the fact that the judge operates within a system of rules developed over the years by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath."
In the past, Roberts has said that he does not have an "all-encompassing" approach to deciding cases.
Conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have described themselves as "originalists." They say they believe they should decide cases by sticking to the words and meaning of the Constitution as it was written in 1787.
By contrast, their liberal colleagues, such as Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen G. Breyer, have said the Constitution's principles should be interpreted according to today's understanding.
