No Activity That Society Thinks

When A Judge Assumes The Power To Decide Which Distinctions Made In A Statute Are Legitimate And Which Are Not, He Assumes The Power To Disapprove Of Any And All Legislation, Because All Legislation Makes Distinctions

No Church That Panders To The Zeitgeist Deserves Respect, And Very Shortly It Will Not Get Respect, Except From Those Who Find It Politically Useful, And That Is Less Respect Than Disguised Contempt.

Conservatives . . . May Decide To Join The Game And Seek Activist Judges With Conservative Views. Should That Come To Pass, Those Who Have Tempted The Courts To Political Judging Will Have Gained Nothing For Themselves But Will Have Destroyed A Great And Essential Institution. . . . There Are Only Two Sides. Either The Constitution And Statutes Are Law, Which Means Their Principles Are Known And Control Judges, Or They Are Malleable Texts That Judges May Rewrite To See That Particular Groups Or Political Causes Win.

Americans Revere Both The Constitution And An Independent Court That Applies The Document's Provisions. The Court Has Done Many Excellent Things In Our History, And Few People Are Willing To See Its Power Broken. The Difficulty With All Proposals To Respond To The Court When It Behaves Unconstitutionally Is That They Would Create A Power To Destroy The Court's Essential Work As Well.

The National Rifle Association Is Always Arguing That The Second Amendment Determines The Right To Bear Arms. But I Think It Really Is The People's Right To Bear Arms In A Militia. The Nra Thinks It Protects Their Right To Have Teflon-coated Bullets. But That's Not The Original Understanding.