Government has to have the flexibility to say, ‘We’re going to dismiss this person, not because we think he’s disloyal but because we think he is [for example] a bad lawyer,’

I sympathize with this person, but it’s really not any different than a posting on an anonymous Web page.

who answered questions in great detail and got rejected.

The sense is that he is very highly qualified and has an excellent judicial temperament, which means he is seen as a calm and thoughtful person, which is what you want in a judge,

He is a person of proven legal brilliance and judicial temperament, and he is respected by scholars on the left as well as on the right,

Lawyers tend to have something credible to say about an important subject. Lawyers have been educated about the legal system, which people are interested in.

I t is a normal part of the employment process to evaluate one’s subordinates.

There’s just no way that Apple can win.

It doesn’t limit itself to defamation. The principle is the same, whether it’s libel or discrimination.

But they were gathering dust in some courthouse basement. These things were technically accessible, but unless you had a lot of time or could afford to hire a private detective to go look this stuff...

The difficulty is that the right to privacy, … is a right to have the government stop you from speaking about me.