I wouldn't approach the issue of judging in the way the president does. Judges can't rely on what's in their heart. It's not the heart that compels conclusions in cases. It's the law.

It's not the heart that compels conclusions in cases, it's the law.

When you have strong views about how to approach thinking about the law, then that view is going to lead to certain results in certain situations. And so people seem to think this predictability is based on some kind of partisan political view. But it's not.

Even though Article IV of the Constitution says that treaties are the 'supreme law of the land,' in most instances they're not even law.

I'm young at heart. I'm young in spirit, and I'm still adventurous.

I accept the proposition that...“to judge is an exercise of power” and because...“there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives – no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging,” I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions.

The idea of a commonwealth relationship is alien to most people but I think that's true generally.