Quote

But the Supreme Court does not make sweeping changes in constitutional law by accident, or by its own design. Rather, the Court is limited to deciding the cases that the parties ask the Court to decide.

Judges need to restrict themselves to the proper resolution of the case before them. They need to avoid the temptation to set broad policy.

One cannot tell the High Court what to adjudicate. They must judge, and then the legislature must act accordingly.

Most high courts in other nations do not have discretion, such as we enjoy, in selecting the cases that the high court reviews. Our court is virtually alone in the amount of discretion it has.

A judge can't have any preferred outcome in any particular case. The judge's only obligation - and it's a solemn obligation - is to the rule of law.

Tennis is basically a game where you try to create an opportunity for yourself to finish the point, because you can't wait for the opponent to miss anymore. Well, if you create an opportunity and don't take advantage of it, you let the opponent back to even, then you are just starting the point over, so you have to take advantage of them.

One of the litmus tests for judicial conservatism is the idea of judicial restraint - that courts should give substantial deference to the decisions of the political process. When Congress and the president enact a law, conservatives generally say, judges should avoid 'legislating from the bench.'

Just because a majority of the Supreme Court declares something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so.

I think the tennis is only a game. You can lose. You can win. After that? In life, there are much more important things than tennis.

Home court changes everything. If you have home court, you're expected to win.