xcerpts from John Roberts' answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee's request to expound on "judicial activism" and respond to criticism that "the judicial branch has usurped many of the prerogatives of other branches and levels of government":

"To the extent the term 'judicial activism' is used to describe unjustified intrusions by the judiciary into the realm of policy making, the criticism is well-founded."

"It is not 'judicial activism' when the courts carry out their constitutionally-assigned function and overturn a decision of the Executive or Legislature in the course of adjudicating a case or controversy properly before the courts."

"The proper exercise of the judicial role in our constitutional system requires a degree of institutional and personal modesty and humility. This essential modesty manifests itself in several ways:

"First, 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. ...

"Second, a judge needs the humility to appreciate that he is not necessarily the first person to confront a particular issue. Precedent plays an important role in promoting the stability of the legal system. ...

"Third, a judge must have the humility to be fully open to the views of his fellow judges on the court."

"A good judge must be a thoughtful skeptic at each stage of the appellate process. 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 briefs without reviewing the record, or reading the precedent without testing the lawyers' contentions during oral argument, or analyzing the different positions without receptive consideration of the views of the other judges. ... 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."

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...pf.html