WASHINGTON – President Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge John Roberts Jr., argued yesterday in response to a Senate questionnaire that judges should avoid meddling in complex social problems best resolved by the political branches of government.

“Judges must be constantly aware that their role, while important, is limited,” Judge Roberts wrote. “They do not have a commission to solve society’s problems, as they see them, but simply to decide cases before them according to the rule of law. When the other branches of government exceed their constitutionally mandated limits, the courts can act to confine them to the proper bounds. It is judicial self-restraint, however, that confines judges to their proper constitutional responsibilities.”

Judges should exhibit “institutional and personal modesty and humility,” Judge Roberts said. In describing the importance of precedent, he wrote, “A judge needs the humility to appreciate that he is not necessarily the first to confront a particular issue.”

Most of the 67-page response delivered to the Senate yesterday consists of a mechanical recitation of the details of the 39 appearances Judge Roberts made before the Supreme Court, as well as other aspects of his legal career, his family, and his personal finances.

In one response, Judge Roberts suggested he would not take part in any Supreme Court case involving the government’s policy of trying some war-on-terror prisoners by military tribunal. Answering a generic question about conflicts of interest, he wrote, “I would also recuse myself from matters in which I participated while a judge on the court of appeals.”

Last month, Judge Roberts joined a decision of the D.C. Circuit that upheld the government’s right to go forward with military trials for the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. Some lawyers had questioned whether the judge might wind up sitting in judgment of his own previous ruling, but the judge’s statement to the Senate indicates he intends to avoid that predicament.

In response to a question about legal work for political parties, Judge Roberts briefly described his involvement in 2000 on behalf of the Bush campaign in the legal maneuvering surrounding the electoral results in Florida. The role played by the judge, who was then in private practice, has been viewed with suspicion in liberal circles.

Judge Roberts said he was asked to travel to the state by two prominent Republican attorneys, Benjamin Ginsberg and R. Ted Cruz. “My recollection is that I stayed less than one week,” the judge wrote. “I recall participating in a preparation session for another lawyer scheduled to appear before the Florida Supreme Court and generally being available to discuss those issues as they arose. I returned to Tallahassee at some later point to meet with Governor Jeb Bush, to discuss in a general way the constitutional and statutory provisions implicated by the litigation.”

While Judge Roberts had some contact with Governor Bush, the process that led to the judge’s nomination to the Supreme Court appears to have involved limited direct interaction between the judge and President Bush. The only meeting with the president that Judge Roberts cited in response to the questionnaire was an interview on July 15, four days before the nomination was announced.

The judge said he first discussed the possible high court nomination in an interview with Attorney General Gonzales on April 1, 2005. Later, on May 3, Judge Roberts met with Vice President Cheney; the White House counsel, Harriet Miers; a deputy White House chief of staff, Karl Rove, and Mr. Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby. The judge said that in the weeks that followed, he had a series of conversations with Ms. Miers and her deputy.

When President Bush announced the nomination with Judge Roberts at his side on July 19, Mr. Bush said, “In my meetings with Judge Roberts, I have been deeply impressed.” The questionnaire did not ask Judge Roberts whether he had met Mr. Bush before he embarked on the process of selecting a new justice.

In the questionnaire, Judge Roberts provided a highly detailed account of his financial holdings. He put his family’s net worth at approximately $5.3 million. The vast majority of the money is in investments, though a surprising amount, $1.3 million, is in cash. The sums reflect the judge’s 13 years as an attorney with Hogan & Hartson in Washington, as well as his wife’s successful law practice at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman.

The judge’s responses also describe his pro bono work, including his efforts in 1995 on behalf of welfare recipients in the capital. Judge Roberts argued that the government was obligated to give those receiving public assistance individualized hearings before terminating their benefits. An appeals court disagreed, dealing Judge Roberts a rare courtroom defeat.

While many conservatives have accused National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service of liberal bias, Judge Roberts has not shied away from the government-supported networks. In his response to the Senate, the judge lists three interviews he granted to PBS’s “NewsHour” and 10 he gave to NPR programs since 1991. They were the only press appearances he identified specifically.