Quote

We may have lured judges into roaming at large in the constitutional field.

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

You want to know what judicial activism is? Judicial activism is judges imposing their policy preferences on the words of the Constitution.

The work of deciding cases goes on every day in hundreds of courts throughout the land. Any judge, one might suppose, would find it easy to describe the process which he had followed a thousand times and more. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The Constitution is not a panacea for every blot upon the public welfare. Nor should this Court, ordained as a judicial body, be thought of as a general haven for reform movements.

Dissents are appeals to the brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of another day.

The 14th Amendment was recognized right away to be problematic. The concept of person was both too narrow and too broad, and the courts went to work to overcome both of those flaws.

The notion that Congress can change the meaning given a constitutional provision by the Court is subversive of the function of judicial review; and it is not the less so because the Court promises to allow it only when the Constitution is moved to the left.

Realizing that they can't get their agenda across: against religious liberty, against a culture of life, they can't get those issues across through the legislature, as people respond and their elected officials represent them, so they attempt to do it through the courts.