If we lived in a world where we had the rule of a judge, rather than the rule of law, you would have seen an absolute sea change, an avulsive change in the law as it was interpreted, applied and rendered by our court.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Our role as judges is to interpret the law.
When I went to law school, which after all was back in the dark ages, we never looked beyond our borders for precedents. As a state court judge, it never would have occurred to me to do so, and when I got to the Supreme Court, it was very much the same. We just didn't do it.
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.
Just because there are people who violate rules, behave illegally and so on, it does not mean that everybody is like that. On the contrary, if you watch certain judges, you observe that they honestly try to implement what they believe the Constitution says and just put it into effect.
A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge... stretching for results he prefers rather than those the law demands.
The rule of law in place of force, always basic to my thinking, now takes on a new relevance in a world where, if war is to go, only law can replace it.
Human judges can show mercy. But against the laws of nature, there is no appeal.
Judges should interpret the law, not make it.
Judicial abuse occurs when judges substitute their own political views for the law.
I take judge-made law as one of the existing realities of life.