Quote

Judges are appointed often through the political process.

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.'

Ideological warriors whether from the Left or the Right are bad news for the bench. They tend to make law, not interpret law. And that's not what any of us should want from our judges.

Absent scandal, a federal judge can serve for decades on the bench, underscoring the importance of appointing judges who have a proper understanding of their constitutional role.

What is it that makes us trust our judges? Their independence in office and manner of appointment.

Justices are not politicians. They don't run on a political platform, and senators should not ask them to do so.

I own that it is a good deal of a mystery to me how judges, of all persons in the world, should put their faith in dicta. A brief experience on the bench was enough to reveal to me all sorts of cracks and crevices and loopholes in my own opinions when picked up a few months after delivery and reread with due contrition.

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

I think I present an overwhelming case that these five justices were up to no good, and they deliberately set out to hand the election to George Bush.