A Law Can Be Both Economic Folly

More Importantly, The Court Forgets That Ours Is A Government Of Laws And Not Of Men. That Means We Are Governed By The Terms Of Our Laws, Not By The Unenacted Will Of Our Lawmakers. 'if Congress Enacted Into Law Something Different From What It Intended, Then It Should Amend The Statute To Conform To Its Intent.' In The Meantime, This Court 'has No Roving License ... To Disregard Clear Language Simply On The View That ... Congress 'must Have Intended' Something Broader.

If, Even As The Price To Be Paid For A Fifth Vote, I Ever Joined An Opinion For The Court That Began: 'the Constitution Promises Liberty To All Within Its Reach, A Liberty That Includes Certain Specific Rights That Allow Persons, Within A Lawful Realm, To Define And Express Their Identity,' I Would Hide My Head In A Bag. The Supreme Court Of The United States Has Descended From The Disciplined Legal Reasoning Of John Marshall And Joseph Story To The Mystical Aphorisms Of The Fortune Cookie.

Who Ever Thought That Intimacy And Spirituality [whatever That Means] Were Freedoms? And If Intimacy Is, One Would Think Freedom Of Intimacy Is Abridged Rather Than Expanded By Marriage. Ask The Nearest Hippie.

Having Had The Good Fortune To Serve Beside Her On Both Courts, I Can Attest That Her Opinions Are Always Thoroughly Considered, Always Carefully Crafted And Almost Always Correct (which Is To Say We Sometimes Disagree). That Much Is Apparent For All To See. What Only Her Colleagues Know Is That Her Suggestions Improve The Opinions The Rest Of Us Write, And That She Is A Source Of Collegiality And Good Judgment In All Our Work.

You Could Have 50 Different States Having 50 Different Regulations... Until They Were All Litigated Out.