John Roberts speaks unto politicians like a politician.

With all due respect, Judge Roberts, what if the Supreme Court precedent you are considering is objectively wrong? (e.g., Dred Scott v. Sandford, Buck v. Bell, and Griswold v. Connecticut)

John Roberts pledged Tuesday to respect established rulings if confirmed to the Supreme Court, saying judges must recognize that their role is "not to solve society's problems."

With few appeals court rulings by Roberts to go on, lawmakers and special interest groups have been poring over the nominee's writings to try to determine his legal philosophy. Roberts provided some new insight in answers to a lengthy questionnaire from the Senate Judiciary Committee made public Tuesday. The committee will begin considering Roberts' nomination on Sept. 6.

Roberts provided responses to a broad array of questions involving work history, political ties and views on judicial activism. His thoughts on that subject are considered critical to gauging his position on overturning the 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

"Precedent plays an important role in promoting the stability of the legal system," Roberts wrote. "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."

At the same time, Roberts said that "judges must be constantly aware that their role, while important, is limited."

"They do not have a commission to solve society's problems, as they see them, but simply to decide cases before them according to the rule of law," he wrote.
(Thanks to AP, My Way News, and Drudge.)