I Think The Nine Justices Think The

If There Is An ‘overabundance’ Of An Idea In The Absence Of Direct Governmental Action - Which There Well Might Be When Compared With Some Ideal State Of Public Debate - Then Action Disfavoring That Idea Might ‘un-skew,’ Rather Than Skew, Public Discourse.

There Is No Federal Constitutional Right To Same-sex Marriage.

I Do Not Espouse The Unitarian Position. President Clinton's Assertion Of Directive Authority Over Administration, More Than President Reagan's Assertion Of A General Supervisory Authority, Raises Serious Constitutional Questions.

Suppose A State Said That, Because We Think That The Focus Of Marriage Really Should Be On Procreation, We Are Not Going To Give Marriage Licenses Anymore To Any Couple Where Both People Are Over The Age Of 55. Would That Be Constitutional?

Perhaps Most Important, Judges Will Have Goals. And Because This Is So, Judges Will Often Try To Mold And Steer The Law In Order To Promote Certain Ethical Values And Achieve Certain Social Ends. Such Activity Is Not Necessarily Wrong Or Invalid.