We could use a few more like this

Ed Whelan writes a post over at NRO's Bench Memos on SC nominee John Roberts that summarizes the entirety of the conservative argument vis-a-vis the job of a judge:

Judge Roberts’s opinion in this case clearly illustrates that he understands the role of a judge. PFAW’s highly selective quotations fail to include the following:

“The question before us … is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.”

“The district court had and we too may have thoughts on the wisdom of this policy choice—it is far from clear that the gains in certainty of notification are worth the youthful trauma and tears—but it is not our place to second-guess such legislative judgments.”

UPDATE: Another example of this from the guys at Powerline:

From a legal standpoint, the Hamdan decision illustrates what judicial restraint should be about. The district court, refusing even to consider key legal precedent, had emphasized that by not treating Hamdan better we risked mistreatment of our own soldiers. An arguable policy position, perhaps, but one for the president, the miiltary, and Congress (if it is unhappy with the executive branch's approach) to decide, not an unelected judge. Republican Senators should be willing to tout the fact that Judge Roberts joined Judge Randolph's no-nonsense opinion.