In a constitutional democracy the moral content of law must be given by the morality of the framer or legislator, never by the morality of the judge.

[The current governing judicial philosophy is:] If you want something passionately enough, it is guaranteed by the Constitution. No need to fiddle around gathering votes from recalcitrant citizens.

If the children already born each have only two children themselves ... in twenty-seven to thirty-five years the population of the world will double.

No church that panders to the zeitgeist deserves respect, and very shortly it will not get respect, except from those who find it politically useful, and that is less respect than disguised contempt.

The notion that Congress can change the meaning given a constitutional provision by the Court is subversive of the function of judicial review; and it is not the less so because the Court promises to allow it only when the Constitution is moved to the left.

A society deadened by a smothering network of laws while finding release in moral chaos is not likely to be either happy or stable.

Law is vulnerable to the winds of intellectual or moral fashion, which it then validates as the commands of our most basic concept