High Court Nominee Sides With Restraint

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.

That difference was highlighted this year, when the court, by a 5-4 vote, ruled that the execution of murderers who are age 17 or under was “cruel and unusual punishment” according to contemporary norms. In dissent, Scalia and Thomas said such executions would not have been seen as cruel and unusual punishment in the 18th century.

Roberts has not signed on to either side so far, although many lawyers think that he would be more likely to agree with Scalia and Thomas on such questions.

But in his responses Tuesday, Roberts distanced himself from Scalia’s often-dismissive attitude toward those justices who disagree with him.

Roberts said he expected to learn from his colleagues, and that he was determined to rethink his own initial views.

“A good judge must be a thoughtful skeptic at each stage of the appellate process,” he wrote. “Just as a firm view on the correct result should not be reached after reading only the opening brief, so too such a settled view should not be reached simply” after studying the record or examining the precedents, he said.

“Collegiality is an essential attribute of judicial decision-making,” he added, and it is not just a matter of being friendly. “Instead, [it] is an appreciation that fellow judges have read the same briefs, studied the same precedent and record, and participated in the same oral argument. Their views on the appropriate analysis or outcome accordingly deserve the most careful and conscientious consideration.

“All this requires a degree of modesty and humility in the judge, an ability to recognize that preliminary perceptions may turn out to be wrong, and a willingness to change position in light of later insights,” he concluded.

In the questionnaire, Roberts took issue with media reports that he was affiliated with the Federalist Society, a somewhat secretive group of conservative lawyers who hold debates and other events designed to promote conservative legal views.

Roberts was listed in 1997 as a member of the Washington lawyers steering committee of the Federalist Society. However, Roberts denied being a member of the organization and said he had “no recollection of serving on that committee or being a member of the society.” He did acknowledge taking part in some society events, specifically moderating a panel in 1993 and speaking to a luncheon meeting in October 2003.

He reported belonging to the Republican National Lawyers Assn., as well as to a group of several dozen people who offered their advice to the 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign on matters relating to the Department of Justice. However, Roberts said he did not take part in any council activities.

He also said he served on the executive committee of a group called D.C. Lawyers for Bush-Quayle ‘88, aiding the candidacy of George H.W. Bush.

Roberts also listed membership in the exclusive Metropolitan Club, a Washington social club, as well as in the Lawyers Club of Washington, which holds social lunches and dinners for Washington attorneys.

He acknowledged having traveled to Tallahassee, Fla., in November 2000 to assist lawyers working on behalf of George W. Bush during the Florida presidential election recount, as has been reported.

According to the questionnaire, he stayed less than a week, and his main contribution was to help prepare another lawyer for an appearance before the Florida Supreme Court. After the recounts, he returned to Tallahassee to consult with Gov. Jeb Bush on the implications of the court fight.

Asked about pro bono work he had done, Roberts said that in 1995 he defended District of Columbia welfare recipients whose benefits were canceled in a case known as Barry vs. Little. In cooperation with groups including the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless and the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, Roberts argued that the benefits should not be canceled without individual hearings to assess each person’s eligibility. The Court of Appeals ruled against Roberts.

According to financial disclosure documents also delivered to the committee, Roberts’ last reported salary from his law firm, Hogan & Hartson, was in 2003, when he earned $1 million. As a Supreme Court justice, he could expect a salary of about $200,000.

Roberts lives in a house in Bethesda, Md., that he values at $1.3 million and on which he still owes $790,000 -- his only listed liability.

He also reported holdings of $1.6 million in common stock of various companies, many of them technology firms. His largest single holding is $264,000 in Dell Computer Corp. shares, followed by $213,000 in Time Warner Inc. and $205,000 in Microsoft Corp.

He also holds shares in 34 mutual funds worth $1.7 million, including five education savings plan funds. In addition, he holds $1.3 million in cash in bank accounts, according to the disclosure document.

Normally, Supreme Court justices recuse themselves from cases involving companies in which they hold significant financial interests, but there is no blanket policy for the high court.

In his questionnaire, when asked how he would address potential conflicts of interest, Roberts did not mention his financial holdings. Instead, he said he would recuse himself from matters involving his former law firm or former clients, as well as cases in which he participated as a judge on the Court of Appeals in Washington.