I would love to have attended this speech. I noticed that the attendance was around 7,000, nearly twice that for Sen. Reid's visit. Would some of those who attended his speech care to comment?

Deseret News' report:

PROVO: U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts outlined his conservative judicial philosophy during a speech today at Brigham Young University, saying judges should not legislate from the bench.

"The judicial branch has the authority to interpret the Constitution because it is law," he said, "and must be independent to do so without fear or favor. But the judges must limit themselves to that task. They may not use their independence to write their own policy preferences into the Constitution."

During a 34-minute speech, Roberts quoted fellow conservatives Ronald Reagan, twice, and Robert Bork, once, and also used the Federalist Papers frequently to bolster his theory of a critical, but limited, role for judges.

Roberts suggested to the University Forum audience of 7,080 gathered in BYU's Marriott Center that they read the Constitution again and read the Federalist Papers, where, he said, Alexander Hamilton describes an independence for a Supreme Court justice that "is not the freedom to do whatever he pleases."
....

SL Trib's report:

PROVO: Brigham Young University students tried to pin down the chief just of the U.S. on hot-button topics like extraordinary rendition and Guantanamo Bay detainees during his speech today at the Mariott Center.
After spending nearly half an hour talking about the Constitution, Chief Justice John Roberts took another 40 minutes for questions from the approximately 7,000 students, faculty and family members in the audience.
....

I was kind of dissapointed. He seemed to just talk about the constitution and the importance of judicial review. We just had this same lesson in my American Heritage class, and he taught us even less about judicial review then we learned in a single class period.

I wish he would have given less of a history of the constitution, and given a more detailed summary of what it is exactly that he does, and maybe tell us about some decisions he has had to make and his logic behind them.

Oh well, it was still a privelage to be able to listen to him speak.

dylster88 wrote:

I was kind of dissapointed. He seemed to just talk about the constitution and the importance of judicial review. We just had this same lesson in my American Heritage class, and he taught us even less about judicial review then we learned in a single class period.

I wish he would have given less of a history of the constitution, and given a more detailed summary of what it is exactly that he does, and maybe tell us about some decisions he has had to make and his logic behind them.

Oh well, it was still a privelage to be able to listen to him speak.

I followed his confirmation hearings very closely. It's early, but I believe he'll be one of the finest jurists ever to sit on the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, most jurists play it close to the vest on how they reach their decisions and rarely open up. They do not want to be viewed as having a predisposition for a case that has the potential of coming before them. OF course, if he had said he simply "flipped a coin," I am sure that would have been funny, but ridiculous.

I would really enjoy attending his address to the law students even more. I am sure he will open up there and get even more probing questions. What a great opportunity.