One of the most extraordinary examples in recent decades [of unitary visions of constitutional enterprise] is found in a book called "Takings"... Epstein makes an extremely clever but stunningly reductionist argument that the whole Constitution is really designed to protect private property... Can a constitution reflecting as diverse an array of visions and aspirations as ours really be reducible to such as sadly single-minded vision as that?

An excess of law inescapably weakens the rule of law.

The federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification.

Of course the president Donald Trump said he wants to get to the truth. He always says that. But I think we all know that those words do not speak as loudly as his actions.

The only way the avoid a constitution crisis, and I'm not saying we're there yet, is to reassure the public that the person leading the government is someone who has loyalties other than to himself, not loyalties to the foreign governments that helped him financially.

There are a lot of things that fit on a bumper sticker in terms of either liberty or equality or progress that when made more concrete just don't pan out.

Even those who, like me, believe that Roe v. Wade and the decisions elaborating on reproductive rights were constitutionally correct must recognize that, for many on the right, the sudden and relatively sloppily reasoned character of the abortion rulings... did real damage to the Court's reputation as a relatively neutral arbiter of legal disputes.