Lawyers like to leave no stone unturned, provided they can charge by the stone.

I personally think that we should be extremely reluctant to use a recall mechanism for an unpopular decision simply because of the message it sends about judicial independence.

There are cases in which somebody has demonstrated just such an outrageous disregard for the bounds of an acceptable decision that you want a measure of accountability.

If that were a winning argument, Donald Trump could get anybody off the bench on his cases by just something deeply offensive based on their background.

There have been so many examples of highly qualified judges of enormous integrity who lost their positions because they were in fact disabled from speaking out to defend a controversial opinion.

Individuals because of their identity can't render an impartial judgment is just deeply offensive and contrary to all the ideals of the judicial system that we value.

We don't want to disqualify individuals who are selected partly because they bring that diverse experience to the court in cases where that experience is most likely to make a difference.

To declare the Cold War over, and declare democracy has won out over totalitarianism, is a measure of arrogance and wrong-headedness.

The love of wine is a good man's failing.

See the positive side, the potential, and make an effort.

Gain confidence and you banish fear.

Only bad writers think they're good.

A second book that makes you rethink the first book is the Holy Grail of a series.

Erasures are interesting to me because they prove what particular sieves we all are.

Did you ever really love her? Not really no. But me? Yes. Even though I have no pizzazz?

By learning to trust your intuition, miracles seem to happen. Intuitive thoughts are gifts from the higher self.