This is the worst drug epidemic I've seen in my lifetime.

Some have even suggested that this recent trend has transformed our democracy from one founded on, "We the people," to one ruled by, "We the court."

While the president is to nominate that individual [to Supreme Court], we in the Senate must provide our advice and consent. This function is not well-defined. The Constitution does not set down a road map. It does not require hearings. In fact, it does not even require questioning on your understanding of the Constitution nor the role of the Supreme Court.

There's no psychological barrier anymore that stops a young person or an older person from taking heroin.

In my opinion, Chief Justice Roberts put it best during his recent confirmation hearings. And he said, and I quote, "The framers were not the sort of people, having fought a revolution to get the right of self-government to sit down and say, 'Well, let's take all the difficult issues before us and let's have the judges decide them.' That would have been the farthest thing from their mind," however, I fear that the Supreme Court forgets this advice.

Judges need to restrict themselves to the proper resolution of the case before them. They need to avoid the temptation to set broad policy.

To add to the confusion, some of the court's decisions involved multiple concurrences and dissents, making it hard even for lawyers and judges to figure out what the law is and why.