One can be sophisticated and believe in God. Reason and intellect are not to be laid aside where matters of religion are concerned.

To be honest about it, that is the view of Christians taken by modern society. Surely those who adhere to all or most of these traditional Christian beliefs are to be regarded as simpleminded.

For in order for capitalism to work -- in order for it to produce a good and a stable society -- the traditional Christian virtues are essential.

There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction. My concern is that in making life easier for ourselves we not appear to make it harder for the lower federal courts, imposing upon them the burden of regularly analyzing newly-discovered-evidence-of-innocence claims in capital cases (in which event such federal claims, it can confidently be predicted, will become routine and even repetitive).

If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?

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

The principal purpose of stare decisis is to protect reliance interest and further stability in the law.