If their constituents think ideology is a good reason to vote against a nominee, ... they're going to vote against him.

Skepticism is thus a resting-place for human reason, where it can reflect upon its dogmatic wanderings and make survey of the region in which it finds itself, so that for the future it may be able to choose its path with more certainty. But it is no dwelling-place for permanent settlement. Such can be obtained only through perfect certainty in our knowledge, alike of the objects themselves and of the limits within which all our knowledge of objects is enclosed.

During the first four years of justices' tenure, their voting behavior correlates at a rather high level with their appointing president's ideology, but for justices with ten or more years of service, that relationship drops precipitously,

I told my class the other day I have no idea what judicial activism is, ... Maybe the best definition of a judicial activist is a judge you don't like.

In other words, liberal presidents appoint liberal justices who continue to take liberal positions for a while. Ditto for conservatives. But as new issues come to the Court, or as the justice for whatever reason makes adjustments in his or her political outlook, the president's influence wanes.

We can choose between the future and the past, between reason and ignorance, between true compassion and mere ideology.