Who is to say that 5 men 10 years ago were right whereas 5 men looking the other direction today are wrong.

Why can’t the state accede to the public’s wishes?

And if you take the cameras out of the courtroom, then you hide, I think, a certain measure of truth from the public, and I think that’s very important for the American public to know.

Criticism of government finds sanctuary in several portions of the 1st Amendment. It is part of the right of free speech. It embraces freedom of the press.

In the past, those who had ideas they wished to communicate to the public had the unquestioned right to disseminate those ideas in an open marketplace. called a mall, we should not abridge that right.

What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you’d like it to mean?

The right of an individual to conduct intimate relationships in the intimacy of his or her own home seems to me to be the heart of the Constitution’s protection of privacy.

You could have 50 different states having 50 different regulations… until they were all litigated out.

And the American public was able to make up their own mind whether this verdict was a just verdict or not. So I think there’s a lot of value in the public being able to...

Laws are made to protect the trusting as well as the suspicious.

You can, if you wish, think of it like the universe: Each case is a sun, and all the judges, lawyers and administrative personnel represent planets revolving around the case in fixed orbit, never getting...

A law can be both economic folly and constitutional.

What the Court really has refused to recognize is the fundamental interest all individuals have in controlling the nature of their intimate associations.