A Judge, Not a King

When John Roberts was made Chief Justice of the United States, we all hoped he would take a more strict constructionist view of the Constitution. This interview seems to indicate that he did just that (from Political Diary):

'I'm a Judge, Not a King'

Chief Justice John Roberts sat down for an extended interview with C-SPAN last month after he finished his first year on the Supreme Court. He made it clear that for many who teach or practice law, their first duty should be to spend some time reading the Constitution.

Mr. Roberts said that lawyers often have an arms-length knowledge and understanding of the Constitution: "We talk about it a lot. We have cases about it. But to actually sit down and read it doesn't happen that often, and that is a very rewarding exercise." He said he himself made sure he reread the Constitution last month, after the court had finished its term: "I thought I ought to at least pause for an hour or so and read the original document again to see how closely I think we got to what the framers intended."

He came away from that reading struck by how much the Founding Fathers were wary of appointing federal judges for life. The framers tried to counteract such unchecked judicial power by making sure courts would resolve only legal questions, not vital political issues. He noted that today the prevailing view is far different, with the Supreme Court being seen by many as the final arbiter of disputes. "In a democratic republic that shouldn't be someone's first reaction," he told C-SPAN. "Their first reaction should be to resolve political disputes in the political process." Americans shouldn't think of running to a courtroom for every grievance, but instead should say, "I'm going to talk to my congressman..." It's that kind of judicial modesty that is exactly what Mr. Roberts' supporters were hoping he would exhibit.

He's definitely the liberal activists' worst nightmare.