Mentioning God in the Pledge of Allegiance is no different in kind than allowing government salaried Chaplains for the military or for the Congress, or including the official motto, In God We Trust, on our currency.

Vigilant and effective antitrust enforcement today is preferable to the heavy hand of government regulation of the Internet tomorrow.

A judicial standard means that a judicious decision can be entirely correct, even when the result does not line up with our preferred political positions or cater to certain political interests.

I don't want to be overly critical about our military or our intelligence people, because it's a tough job. But neither should think be beating their breasts and saying what a wonderful job they did.

I do know dumb-ass questions when I see dumb-ass questions.

We must use a judicial, rather than a political, standard to evaluate [a nominee's] fitness for the Supreme Court. That standard must be based on the fundamental principle that judges interpret and apply but do not make law.

I'm not naive. Sometimes interpretation is more of an art than a science. There are those who would label interpretation absolutely anything a judge might do or, two, the text of a statute or the Constitution. But it seems to me there comes a point where a judge is using his own creativity and purpose and crosses the line between interpreting a text written by somebody else and in a sense creating something new.