Exceptions to the traditions of dumpy dignity and fake learnedness in law review writing are as rare as they are beautiful. Once in a while a Thomas Reed Powell gets away with an imaginary judicial opinion that gives a real twist to the lion's tail. Once in a while a Thurman Arnold forgets his footnotes as though to say that if people do not believe or understand him that is their worry and not his. But even such mild breaches of etiquette as these are tolerated gingerly and seldom, and are likely to be looked at a little askance by the writers' more pious brethren.
In the fight against terrorism, national agencies keep full control over their police forces, security and intelligence agencies and judicial authorities.
Empathy is a virtue, but it should not be a guiding judicial principle.
Invalidating laws has absolutely nothing to do with judicial activism. It depends on whether the law is unconstitutional or not. That's really the key point.
It is hard to see Judge Roberts as a judicial activist who would place ideological purity or a particular agenda above or ahead the need for thoughtful legal reasoning.
Of course, conservatives always claim to be against judicial activism.
In the political context fair means somebody that will vote for the unions or for the business. It can't mean that in the judicial context or we're in real trouble.
When a court goes too far, it actually weakens our respect for judicial institutions.
[Louis] Brandeis is often painted as an acolyte of judicial restraint, or the view that judges should uphold laws whether or not they like them.
[The current governing judicial philosophy is:] If you want something passionately enough, it is guaranteed by the Constitution. No need to fiddle around gathering votes from recalcitrant citizens.
The acme of judicial distinction means the ability to look a lawyer straight in the eyes for two hours and not hear a damned word he says.
How Obama approaches judicial selection - and how Republicans respond - now becomes an important story and will remain so until the Senate shuts down judicial confirmations, probably in the summer of 2016 if Senate custom in presidential-election years is followed.
We're dealing with that question now, in the media. How does the judicial system work? There's never going to be a clear-cut answer, but it's a conversation and a conflict in the community. It's not a white thing or a black thing. It's a society thing and a culture thing, and we've gotta figure it out.