"This is starting to remind me of the [Senate] confirmation hearings," said Roberts, the newest member of the U.S. Supreme Court, to a low roar of laughter from students and professors gathered in the Marriott Center.

Roberts was laughing too, but some of the 18 questions he faced were anything but light-hearted.

Students wanted to know Roberts' take on the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; on providing relief to those who were allegedly kidnapped and tortured under the government's extraordinary rendition program; on a possible national ban on gay marriage; and, of course, on Roe v. Wade.

Roberts didn't opine on any of those hot-button issues, saying he cannot comment on matters he may face in the future.

That went for rulings he made in the past too. He would rather let written opinions speak for themselves, he said.

"We don't have much to talk about, I guess," Roberts said to more laughter.

But to some listening closely, Roberts offered hints that he may surprise conservatives with future rulings.

"Clearly, I don't think he's as conservative as President Bush thought," junior Andrew Christensen said after the remarks.

Christensen, who asked Roberts about Guantanamo Bay, said he was pleased to hear that the court would consider a related case in December.

"If anyone is in the position to right this wrong, it is [Roberts]," Christensen said.

Roberts spoke to a crowd of about 7,080 for about 25 minutes before taking questions. He urged students to read the Constitution and outlined its major components. He emphasized that judges are not politicians.

"[Judges] may not use their independence to write their own policy preference into the Constitution," Roberts said.

It's a theme Roberts touched on again while answering a question from junior Evan Crockett about how the court's rulings on potentially immoral and unconstitutional practices used in the war on terror could affect U.S. foreign policy.

"I don't make moral decisions. I make legal decisions," Roberts said. "And sometimes, maybe even often, those legal decisions are contrary to the judgment I would make were it my job to shape the policy."

Crockett acknowledged his question was "loaded" but said he was pleased Roberts at least made an attempt to answer it. His father was less impressed.

"He was very circumspect, careful," said Barry Crockett. "He measured every word."

Equally frustrated by Roberts' refusal to speak candidly was senior Peter Johnston, who asked about the court's refusal to hear the case of Khalid Al-Masri and another man who accuse the U.S. government of kidnapping them and torturing them in other countries.

"If these victims of rendition can't get justice from American courts, where can they get it?" Johnston asked.

Roberts responded. "To the extent those issues might come before the court, judicial ethics would prevent me from commenting." Asked if the Constitution had flaws, Roberts pointed out that the Founding Fathers neglected to address the evils of slavery. He called that omission in the Constitution the country's ''original sin.'' And he called the decision to strike down ''separate but equal'' laws in Brown v. Board of Education the court's ''crowning achievement.''

Roberts did not allow questions from news reporters.

rrizzo@sltrib.com

---

* ANA DARABAN contributed to this report.