"Something has gone seriously awry":
In his dissent in Kelo (buried on page 14), Justice Thomas may well have written my all-time-favorite line of any constitutional opinion (perhaps, in part, because it does not seem to be written to be famous):
"Something has gone seriously awry with this CourtÂ’'s interpretation of the Constitution."
Had this quote been available at the time, I would have led with it in Restoring the Lost Constitution (which began: "Had judges done their job, this book would not need to be written.") One day, it may be added to such "greatest" lines as "The Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics."

To help that along, T-Shirts and mugs should now be forthcoming.

I am enabling comments for your favorite ONE SENTENCE lines from judicial opinions.

Update: IMHO The Kozinski quote posted in the comments by Will Baude is awesome. The quote from Justice Thomas remains my favorite, however, perhaps because it is of such general utility.

J Coy Stull (mail):
I believe John Marshall said: "The power to tax is the power to destroy." McCullough v. Maryland
6.24.2005 8:58pm
pug (mail):
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

Justice Jackson in West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnett (1943).

It's two sentences, not one, but either sentence alone is great.
6.24.2005 8:59pm
Timothy Sandefur (mail) (www):
Three nominees:

"The utmost possible liberty to the individual, and the fullest possible protection to him and his property, is both the limitation and duty of government." Budd v. People, 143 U.S. 517, 551 (1892) (Brewer, J., dissenting).

"[T]he concept of privacy embodies the 'moral fact that a person belongs to himself and not others nor to society as a whole.'" Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians &Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747, 777, n. 5 (Stevens, J., concurring).

"[F]reedom of contract is, nevertheless, the general rule and restraint the exception, and the exercise of legislative authority to abridge it can be justified only by the existence of exceptional circumstances." Adkins v. Children's Hospital of the District of Columbia, 261 U.S. 525, 546 (1923)
6.24.2005 9:00pm
"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by a word or act their faith therein." West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) (majority opn. by Jackson, J.)
6.24.2005 9:22pm
ScottG (mail) (www):
Also from Thomas in Kelo: "Obliterating a provision of the Consitution, of course, guarantees that it will not be misapplied."
6.24.2005 9:29pm
Michelle Dulak Thomson (mail):
Oh, my, ScottG, that's definitely a keeper.
6.24.2005 9:40pm
David Bernstein (mail):
Sutherland in Blaisdell: "A provision of the Constitution, it is hardly necessary to say, does not admit of two distinctly opposite interpretations. It does not mean one thing at one time and an entirely different thing at another time."
6.24.2005 10:23pm
David Bernstein (mail):
That was two sentences, but there could be a semicolon instead of a period between them.
6.24.2005 10:24pm
DNL (mail):
Talking about junk mail:
"Although most of us, while murmuring an appropriate expletive, would have simply thrown away the mailer, and some might have stood on principle and filed an action in small claims court to obtain the calculator watch, Joshua's father did something a little different: he launched a $ 15 million lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court."

Harris v. Time, 191 Cal. App. 3d 449 (1987), judge unknown (read: I'm too lazy to log into westlaw.)
6.24.2005 10:46pm
I'd buy a t-shirt and/or a mug!
6.24.2005 11:16pm
Craig C. (mail):
"At this stage - as in countless others in which the law profoundly affects the life of the individual - the lawyer is the essential medium through which the demands and commitments of the sovereign are communicated to the citizen." Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 415 (Stevens, J., concurring).
6.24.2005 11:32pm
Reg (mail):
2 easy classics from Scalia's great Casey dissent:

The Court's temptation is . . . towards systematically eliminating checks upon its own power; and it succumbs.

The Imperial Judiciary Lives.
6.24.2005 11:33pm
Joseph Henchman (mail):
Justice Sutherland dissenting in Associated Press v. NLRB, 301 U.S. 103, 141:
For the saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of a vainshed liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while yet there was time.

Justice Sutherland for the Court in Adkins v. Children's Hospital:
To sustain the individual freedom of action contemplated by the Constitution is not to strike down the common good, but to exalt it; for surely the good of society as a whole cannot be better served than by the preservation against arbitrary restraint of the liberties of its constituent members.

Justice Sutherland, dissenting in New State Ice v. Liebmann:
The principle is imbedded in our constitutional system that there are certain essentials of liberty with which the state is not entitled to dispense in the interest of experiments.

Justice Sutherland, dissenting in Blaisdell:
If the provisions of the Constitution be not upheld when they pinch as well as when they comfort, they may as well be abandoned.

Justice McReynolds, dissenting in Nebbia v. New York:
The Legislature cannot lawfully destroy guaranteed rights of one man with the prime purpose of enriching another, even if for the moment, this may seem advantageous to the public.

Justice McReynolds, dissenting in NLRB v. Jones &Laughlin:
Almost anything -- marriage, birth, death -- may in some fashion affect commerce.

Justice Rehnquist, dissenting in Garcia v. San Antonio Metro:
[A] principle that will, I am confident, in time again command the support of a majority of this Court.
6.24.2005 11:39pm
arbitrary_aardvark (mail) (www):
thomas's riff on spenser is worth noting here.
Whatever the utility of irrigation districts or the merits of the Court's view that another rule would be "impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society," ante, at 8, the Constitution does not embody those policy preferences any more than it "enact[s] Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics." Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 75 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting); but see id., at 58-62 (Peckham, J., for the Court).
I'm not sure i have a favorite but i'm fond of
"Fuck the Draft."- Cohen v California, and
"A wonderful new boutique of first amendment litigation opens its doors." Scalia dissenting in McIntyre.
6.24.2005 11:54pm
Reg (mail):
Hey Jack, does that apply just to economic rights or to sodomy and abortions as well?
6.25.2005 12:06am
MattR (mail) (www):
"This case gives fresh meaning to the phrase, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.'"

-Judge Kozinski, United States v. Gomez.
6.25.2005 12:15am
Matt Barr (mail) (www):
You need more Scalia in this thread. Here're two.

"It has been rendered the solemn duty of the Supreme Court of the United States, laid upon it by Congress in pursuance of the Federal Government's power '(t)o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,' to decide What Is Golf."

PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin (dissenting)

"Like some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad after being repeatedly killed and buried, Lemon stalks our Establishment Clause jurisprudence once again, frightening the little children and school attorneys of Center Moriches Union Free School District."

Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches School District (concurring)
6.25.2005 12:38am
Reg (mail):
Particularly apt, from Brandeis's dissent in Olmstead:

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent."
6.25.2005 12:43am
Sco (mail):
"When we tell the world that we expect all people, wherever they may be, to abide by our laws, we cannot in the same breath tell the world that our law enforcement officers need not do the same."

--Justice Brennan dissenting in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez.
6.25.2005 1:09am
Joel Friedlander (mail):
"The Court has confused a kulturkampf for a fit of spite."

Scalia dissenting in Romer v. Evans (or words to that effect)
6.25.2005 1:13am
CrazyTrain (mail):
"From what we have said so far, it follows that it is a constitutional liberty of the woman to have some freedom to terminate her pregnancy." Casey v. Planned Parenthood (Joint Opinion of O'Connor, Kennedy &Souter, JJ.)

I'm a trouble-maker. By the way, I never knew that there were such fans of Justice McReynolds -- should read up on who the guy was before you start quoting him.
6.25.2005 2:47am
Perseus (mail):
"The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance."--Justice Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut

I mention this one not because I agree with it, but because every time I teach it, I can barely repress giggling when it is read out loud.
6.25.2005 3:14am
anonymous (www):
My personal favorite comes from Justice Holmes in Buck v. Bell
"Three generations of imbeciles are enough"
6.25.2005 3:22am
Timothy Sandefur (mail):
Has it been three generations since 1937? Then I concur!
6.25.2005 3:46am
There are limits to the extent to which a legislatively represented majority may conduct biological experiments at the expense of the dignity and personality and natural powers of a minority--even those who have been guilty of what the majority define as crimes.
-- Justice Jackson, concurring in Skinner v. Oklahoma
6.25.2005 4:08am
Stephen Aslett (mail):
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

--Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992)

"In my opinion, the judgment this day rendered will, in time, prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott Case."

--Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 559 (Harlan, J. dissenting)
6.25.2005 4:28am
So can anyone explain to me what Senator Reid finds lacking in Justice Thomas' intellect.

Thomas seems the most committed defender of the constitution amongst the current supremes.

I guess for some, that kind of commitment lacks imagination.

(my apologies for not finding some appropriate judicial quote from the past)
6.25.2005 7:28am
Feddie (mail) (www):
"But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best."

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, ___ (2003) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
6.25.2005 8:11am
Adam (mail) (www):
One that's been on my mind a lot lately with the FEC hearings coming this week on political activity on the internet. The first sentence is the set-up; the second, the punchline:

"[I]f the goal of our First Amendment jurisprudence is the "individual dignity and choice" that arises from "putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us", then we should be especially vigilant in preventing content-based regulation of a medium that every minute allows individual citizens actually to make those decisions. Any content-based regulation of the Internet, no matter how benign the purpose, could burn the global village to roast the pig."

ACLU v Reno, 929 F.Supp. 824, 882 (E.D.Pa. 1996) (Dalzell, J.)
6.25.2005 9:10am
Adam (mail) (www):
One that's been on my mind a lot lately with the FEC hearings coming this week on political activity on the internet. The first sentence is the set-up; the second, the punchline:

"[I]f the goal of our First Amendment jurisprudence is the "individual dignity and choice" that arises from "putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us", then we should be especially vigilant in preventing content-based regulation of a medium that every minute allows individual citizens actually to make those decisions. Any content-based regulation of the Internet, no matter how benign the purpose, could burn the global village to roast the pig."

ACLU v Reno, 929 F.Supp. 824, 882 (E.D.Pa. 1996) (Dalzell, J.)
6.25.2005 9:10am
Joseph Henchman (mail):
Re: Justice McReynolds, yeah I know all about him. Even odious human beings can do something good - I think there are examples of THAT all around us in the world.
6.25.2005 9:35am
SupremacyClaus (mail):
"You are under arrest for insurrection against the Constitution. You have a right to remain silent, although there is almost no chance of that."

Federal Marshall, finally doing duty, disinfecting the Supreme Court of its cult addled, Euro trash mentored, mental cripple lawyers.
6.25.2005 10:36am
Adam Scales (mail):
Two suggestions, from very different ideological perspectives:

Scalia in Lawrence: "Do not believe them." (Referring to majority's suggestion that the ruling did not mean the end of morals legislation.)

Stevens in DeShaney: "Poor Joshua!"
6.25.2005 10:38am
Craig Oren (mail):
" It is in fact comforting to witness the reality that he who lives by the ipse dixit dies by the ipse dixit."

Scalia, J., dissenting in Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988)
6.25.2005 10:50am
William Baude (mail) (www):
Mr. Scales: That's Blackmun in Deshaney.

I nominate Judge Kozinski's Silveira dissent:

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed--where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees-- however improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."
6.25.2005 11:18am
Abigail Thernstrom (mail) (www):
I, too, love the line in Justice Thomas's Kelo dissent, but his entire point deserves quotation: "Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution. Although citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not."
6.25.2005 1:48pm
NormB (mail):
From Scalia's dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld:
Whatever the general merits of the view that war silences law or modulates its voice, that view has no place in the interpretation and application of a Constitution designed precisely to confront war and, in a manner that accords with democratic principles, to accommodate it.

From the first Justice Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson (the first sentence would do, but I've included following sentences which develop its meaning):

Our Constitution is colorblind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved.
6.25.2005 3:49pm
Tim Keeler (mail):
"[The forefathers] knew what emergencies were, knew the pressures they engender for authoritative action, knew, too, how they afford a ready pretext for usurpation. We may also suspect that they suspected that emergency powers would tend to kindle emergencies."

Jackson, J., concurring in Youngstown, the Steel Seizure Case.

And this also, "Such institutions [free government] may be destined to pass away. But it is the duty of the Court to be last, not first, to give them up."
6.25.2005 3:55pm
CharleyCarp (mail):
It is so odious that nothing can be sufficient to support it but positive law.

Lord Mansfield, in Somersett v. Stewart, speaking of slavery.
6.25.2005 4:17pm
CharleyCarp (mail):
It's more than a sentence, but then it's unreported. (OK that's a non-seq, but hey it's worth it). This from Chief Justice Wm. Cushing in Commonwealth v. Jennison:

As to the doctrine of slavery and the right of Christians to hold Africans in perpetual servitude, and sell and treat them as we do our horses and cattle, that (it is true) has been heretofore countenanced by the Province Laws formerly, but nowhere is it expressly enacted or established. It has been a usage -- a usage which took its origin from the practice of some of the European nations, and the regulations of British government respecting the then Colonies, for the benefit of trade and wealth. But whatever sentiments have formerly prevailed in this particular or slid in upon us by the example of others, a different idea has taken place with the people of America, more favorable to the natural rights of mankind, and to that natural, innate desire of Liberty, with which Heaven (without regard to color, complexion, or shape of noses-features) has inspired all the human race. And upon this ground our Constitution of Government, by which the people of this Commonwealth have solemnly bound themselves, sets out with declaring that all men are born free and equal -- and that every subject is entitled to liberty, and to have it guarded by the laws, as well as life and property -- and in short is totally repugnant to the idea of being born slaves. This being the case, I think the idea of slavery is inconsistent with our own conduct and Constitution; and there can be no such thing as perpetual servitude of a rational creature, unless his liberty is forfeited by some criminal conduct or given up by personal consent or contract ....
6.25.2005 4:29pm
NickM (mail) (www):
"Separation of powers, a distinctively American political doctrine, profits from the advice authored by a distinctively American poet: Good fences make good neighbors."
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm (1995) (Scalia, J.)
6.25.2005 5:35pm
While I disagree with his argument, this has always struck me as a masterful line (or two).

"Today's extension of the Edwards prohibition is the latest stage of prophylaxis built upon prophylaxis, producing a veritable fairyland castle of imagined constitutional restriction upon law enforcement. This newest tower, according to the Court, is needed to avoid "inconsisten[cy] with [the] purpose" of Edwards' prophylactic rule, ante, at 491, which was needed to protect Miranda's prophylactic right to have counsel present, which was needed to protect the right against compelled self-incrimination found (at last!) in the Constitution."
--Scalia, dissenting, in Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146 (1990)
6.25.2005 6:43pm
"But interior decorating is a rock-hard science compared to psychology practiced by amateurs."
Scalia, dissenting in Lee v. Weisman (1992)
6.25.2005 7:26pm
Phil (mail):
This is easily my favorite quote:

"Ultimately all the questions in this case really boil down to one -- whether we as a people will try fearfully and futilely to preserve democracy by adopting totalitarian methods, or whether in accordance with our traditions and our Constitution we will have the confidence and courage to be free." - Justice Black dissenting in Barrenblatt v. U.S.
6.25.2005 7:30pm
Aaron Dossett (mail):
But to portray Roe as the statesmanlike "settlement" of a divisive issue, a jurisprudential Peace of Westphalia that is worth preserving, is nothing less than Orwellian.

Justice Scalia dissenting in Casey
6.25.2005 7:38pm
Larry (mail) (www):
I like the shirts. Can you print Thomas' dissent in Hamdi on the back, because I think we need to understand reason that the framers saw the presidency as somewhat imperial.
6.25.2005 8:49pm
"The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law." Stevens, dissenting, in Bush v. Gore.
6.25.2005 9:17pm
Randy (mail) (www):
A propos the previous quote from Justice Stevens, you may be interested in this old op-ed of mine: Getting Stevens Right.
6.25.2005 9:24pm
Kevin Baker (mail) (www):
I, too, vote for William Baude's choice Kozinski quote from Silveira, but I have a couple more of his from that same decision:

It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us.

Expanding some (Constitutional provisions) to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution; it's using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our personal preferences.

As an inferior court, we may not tell the Supreme Court it was out to lunch when it last visited a constitutional provision.

Then there's Kleinfield's take on Silveira:

The panel's protection of what it calls the "people's right to bear arms" protects that "right" in the same fictional sense as the "people's" rights are protected in a "people's democratic republic."

That case is a veritable gold mine of quotable quotes.

Unfortunately, as it seems with most of the best-reasoned, best written jurisprudence, it comes from the dissenting side.
6.25.2005 9:32pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.

The first sentence there is good -- but if you only want one sentence, take the last one.

Of course, there are a bunch of good Brandeis quotes in Olmstead. Pick one of the sentences from his last paragraph.

Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means-to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal-would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face.
6.26.2005 12:28am
Dan Simon (www):
"If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood."

-- Bedevere v. Witch (1975)
6.26.2005 2:04am
"The year was 2001, and everybody was finally equal."

PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin (Scalia, J. dissenting)
6.26.2005 2:38am
"How enviable a quiet death by lethal injection compared with that." Scalia, in his response to Justice Blackmun's strange tirade in a cert denial shortly before he retired, in which Blackmun relieved himself of the opinion that the death penalty is always unconstitutional. The "that" Scalia is referring to in the quote is a grisly rape/murder of a little girl.
6.26.2005 7:20am
Cory Olson (mail):
I didn't have one off the top of my head, but a friend of mine gave me this one. It's two sentences, but it needs the setup.

"When is it, one must wonder, that the psychotherapist came to play such an indispensable role in the maintenance of the citizenry's mental health? For most of history, men and women have worked out their difficulties by talking to, inter alios, parents, siblings, best friends, and bartenders--none of whom was awarded a privilege against testifying in court."
6.26.2005 9:41pm
Patterico (mail) (www):
Don't forget Justice Blackmun in Flood v. Kuhn:

Then there are the many names, celebrated for one reason or another, that have sparked the diamond and its environs and that have provided tinder for recaptured thrills, for reminiscence and comparisons, and for conversation and anticipation in-season and off-season: Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Tris Speaker, Walter Johnson, Henry Chadwick, Eddie Collins, Lou Gehrig, Grover Cleveland Alexander, Rogers Hornsby, Harry Hooper, Goose Goslin, Jackie Robinson, Honus Wagner, Joe McCarthy, John McGraw, Deacon Phillippe, Rube Marquard, Christy Mathewson, Tommy Leach, Big Ed Delahanty, Davy Jones, Germany Schaefer, King Kelly, Big Dan Brouthers, Wahoo Sam Crawford, Wee Willie Keeler, Big Ed Walsh, Jimmy Austin, Fred Snodgrass, Satchel Paige, Hugh Jennings, Fred Merkle, Iron Man McGinnity, Three-Finger Brown, Harry and Stan Coveleski, Connie Mack, Al Bridwell, Red Ruffing, Amos Rusie, Cy Young, Smokey Joe Wood, Chief Meyers, Chief Bender, Bill Klem, Hans Lobert, Johnny Evers, Joe Tinker, Roy Campanella, Miller Huggins, Rube Bressler, Dazzy Vance, Edd Roush, Bill Wambsganss, Clark Griffith, Branch Rickey, Frank Chance, Cap Anson, Nap Lajoie, Sad Sam Jones, Bob O'Farrell, Lefty O'Doul, Bobby Veach, Willie Kamm, Heinie Groh, Lloyd and Paul Waner, Stuffy McInnis, Charles Comiskey, Roger Bresnahan, Bill Dickey, Zack Wheat, George Sisler, Charlie Gehringer, Eppa Rixey, Harry Heilmann, Fred Clarke, Dizzy Dean, Hank Greenberg, Pie Traynor, Rube Waddell, Bill Terry, Carl Hubbell, Old Hoss Radbourne, Moe Berg, Rabbit Maranville, Jimmie Foxx, Lefty Grove.

Of course, in context, the next sentence is pretty good too:

The list seems endless.

6.26.2005 10:27pm
Alaska (mail) (www):
I would suggest Justice Rabinowitz's assessment of the 49th state in Ravin v. State (holding that an individuals' right of privacy in his own home trumps any social interest in proscribing possesson of marijuana and thus, individuals can possess up to four ounces of marijuana in their own homes):

"Our territory and now state has traditionally been the home of people who prize their individuality and who have chosen to settle or to continue living here in order to achieve a measure of control over their own lifestyles which is now virtually unattainable in many of our sister states."

Sadly, this is disappearing, but there is still a strong flavor of freedom and individuality up here.
6.27.2005 2:18am
Justin D. Hein (mail) (www):
Cardozo's famous articulation of fiduciary duty in Meinhard v. Salmon:

Many forms of conduct permissible in a work-a-day world for those acting at arm's length are forbidden to those bound by fiduciary ties. A trustee is held to something stricter than the morals of the market place. Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive, is then the standard of behavior...Only thus has the level of conduct for fiduciaries been kept at a level higher than that trodden by the crowd."
6.27.2005 2:19am
rcs (mail):
Scalia in Romer:

If merely stating this alleged "equal protection" violation does not suffice to refute it, our constitutional jurisprudence has achieved terminal silliness.
6.27.2005 9:50am
Sean Sirrine (mail) (www):
Here's a new one from today's ruling on the display of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky:

The Counties position just bucks common
sense: reasonable observers have reasonable memories,
and our precedents sensibly forbid an observer to turn a
blind eye to the context in which [the] policy arose.
6.27.2005 1:52pm
Gerry Ford:
Wisdom too often never comes, and so one ought not to reject it merely because it comes late.

--Felix Frankfurter, Henslee v. Union Planters Nat. Bank &Trust Co.
6.27.2005 6:32pm
Lisa Binder (mail):
Knock yourself out guys! T-shirts and mugs are at
6.28.2005 3:49am
Lisa Binder (mail):
6.28.2005 2:37pm