Get The Bible And Swear Him In, Please!

Here's just what I needed to hear from John G Roberts in order to support him as a candidate for our Supreme Court. His statement below and satisfactory results from the requisite background check is all I need to know. Swear him in, please!
***
When asked about his judicial philosophy by Chuck Schumer, Roberts responded:

My own judicial philosophy begins with an appreciation of the limited role of a judge in our system of divided powers. Judges are not to legislate and are not to execute the laws. . . . My judicial philosophy accordingly insists upon some rigor in ensuring that judges properly confine themselves to the adjudication of the case before them, and seek neither to legislate broadly not to administer the law generally in deciding that case.

Deciding the case . . . . requires an essential humility grounded in the properly limited role of an undemocratic judiciary in a democratic republic, a humility reflected in doctrines of deference to legislative policy judgments and embodied in the often misunderstood term “judicial restraint.” That restraint does not mean that judges should not act against the popular will. . . .[T]he framers expected them to be discerning the law, not shaping policy. That means the judges should not look to their own personal views or preferences in deciding the cases before them. Their commission is no license to impose those preferences from the bench.

When asked about "judicial activism" Roberts responded:

to refer to a judge who has transgressed the limited role assigned to the judicial branch under the Constitution, and has either undertaken to exercise the legislative function by imposing his own personal policy preferences under the guise of legal interpretation, or has arrogated to himself the executive function by imposing his policy views on how the law should be administered.

Photo Credit: UP/Charles Dharapak, www.SFGate.com, July 20, 2005