First, I would like to say that as a speaker, Chief Justice John Roberts is more charismatic and entertaining than a long-time federal judge has any right to be. Second, I got to ask my first question, and the answer was quite revelatory, even if it did make me wish I had chosen to ask the other one. The following are my impressions, fresh from a cozy Q&A with THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

I actually got to kick off with the first question. I noted that most discussion of judges focuses on modes of constitutional analysis or on the judicial activism/restraint/abdication spectrum. Then I asked to what extent more fundamental legal philosophies, like virtue jurisprudence or positivism, factor into the judicial decision-making process.

The first answer was, "I don't know!" That got some laughs. Then Chief Justice Roberts suggested that decisions are largely internal and very "end-of-the-day," that he does not approach any decisions from a set philosophy but rather looks at Constitution, the relevant statutes, on down the line, eventually coming to a logical conclusion about what the law says. He then suggested that academics might be able to look back at his career and try to categorize him as a "purpose-ivist" (I think he meant positivist) or an "originalist" or whatever, but that is inevitably a hindsight analysis.

It was a very revealing answer. I can say with some certainty that, whatever his academic prowess, Chief Justice Roberts is evidently not "an academic." Which is either high praise or serious criticism, I suppose, depending on one's perspective; for myself, I was mostly interested to know for sure where he fits. Ultimately, he is a very practical man, and this did not come as any great surprise.

Two later question touched on this a bit as well. One was a very strong statement that "results-oriented jurisprudence" is not acceptable; one should reason things out and arrive at a result, not select a desired result and "find a way" to justify it. This is not quite the same thing as my question, as result-oriented is not the same as having a philosophical commitment, but some coincidence of the two might be argued.

The other was about his favorite subject, namely court unity. In answer to the suggestion that the Court's opinions are getting quite lengthy--sometimes in excess of 100 reporter pages including dissents--Chief Justice Roberts agreed that the length is a continuing problem, but that it is at least partially due to other justices with long careers trying to explain apparent inconsistencies in their personal jurisprudence, trying to address future cases, etc. He suggested that the justices should be more concerned about the Court's jurisprudence as an entity. Obviously the implication for my question is that personal philosophies will naturally impact one's feelings, but ultimately he believes the Court should offer simple, applicable precedent rather than philosophically complex but theoretically consistent decisions.

There were a lot of other great questions posed. His family life is one of careful balance; he echoed Chief Justice Rehnquist's words that one can only spend time with one's young children while those children are young. He noted that the rule between him and his wife is that they do not spend more than 2 nights away from home in a given week.

He strongly feels that neither popular sentiment nor political influence truly impact his decisions--he has life tenure! Once he took the judicial oath, he felt a clean break from past political influences. The only pressure he feels is from his colleagues, to whom he must explain his opinions in order to (hopefully) convince them. He does feel, however, that the confirmation process lately has begun to infect the courts with the partisanship that is festering in other branches of government; he maintains that the Court's greatest difficulty is to maintain the separation the judiciary has enjoyed from the political process through its apolitical structuring.

Finally, Chief Justice Roberts had a great deal to say regarding the Supreme Court as a "shining beacon" for people establishing rule-of-law governments around the world. "Say what you will about the other branches," he suggested, the mere existence of a governmental body that can enforce the Constitution against the government is a major inspiration.

I won't comment much more than that, though his every word was fertile ground for further discussion. The entire Q&A was a singular and fascinating experience, and helped me to better understand Chief Justice Roberts--the man who will, probably more than anyone living today, shape the legal world in ways that will directly influence my career. Time well spent.

(One of my classmates has also blogged about the experience. You can find his comments here.)