I have no doubt that the threshold [of suffering] may be crossed if a late applicant with no means and no alternative sources of support, unable to support himself is, by deliberate action of the state, denied shelter, food or the most basic necessities of life.

We had a burden to meet and that burden was proven: That she committed the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt, ... I did what the law required me to do. I presented all the evidence.

Is suffering so very serious? I have come to doubt it. It may be quite childish, a sort of undignified pastime / I'm referring to the kind of suffering a man inflicts on a woman or a woman on a man. It's extremely painful. I agree that it's hardly bearable. But I very much fear that this sort of pain deserves no consideration at all. It's no more worthy of respect than old age or illness.

We're going to lose a lot of Black businesses, there's no doubt about that. We were suffering economically down here prior to the hurricane. Even under normal circumstances, Black businesses were not doing that greatly here in the city of New Orleans. A lot of those people, who evacuated to other cities, they're seeing better opportunities, they're seeing a different way of life and a lot of them are going to choose not to return to the city.

The issue is one of constitutional principle, whether evidence obtained by torturing another human being may lawfully be admitted against a party to proceedings in a British court, irrespective of where, or by whom, or on whose authority the torture was inflicted. To that question I would give a very clear negative answer.

It is an old and cherished tradition of our country that everyone should be free to go about their business in the streets of the land, confident that they will not be stopped and searched by the police unless reasonably suspected of having committed a criminal offense.