Quote

I do not think that we should select judges based on a particular philosophy as opposed to temperament, commitment to judicial neutrality and commitment to other more constant values as to which there is general consensus.

Judges rule on the basis of law, not public opinion, and they should be totally indifferent to pressures of the times.

Judges should interpret the law, not make it.

The Supreme Court is not the impetus for constitutional change - we are.

Judges can determine fair justice far better than any inane federal mandate.

But I do believe this - I believe that fundamentally, society is headed in the right direction or wants to head in the right direction, and I think judges have an obligation to try to help it head there.

I'm a judge. It seemed to me that it was critical to try to take action to stem the criticism and help people understand that in the constitutional framework, it's terribly important not to have a system of retaliation against decisions people don't like.

If the court is a political institution making important political decisions, then the public should debate the politics of Supreme Court decisions.

Judges should interpret the laws according to what they say, not according to what the judges wish they would say. Judges are supposed to interpret the laws; they are not supposed to make them.

Judges should always behave judicially by adjudicating, never politically by legislating. I leave policy to policymakers. They're preeminent, but they're not omnipotent. In other words, lawmakers decide if laws pass, but judges decide if laws pass muster.