There's a tradition in politics of asking young people for their votes and time without asking people for their opinions and ideas.

It's the same thing with religion (as politics) -- you don't give opinions on that. People can go and say anything about Bush, just not in a public school.

We need to criticize, and give our opinions on how we need to improve. By doing that we can inspire each other to play better.

There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against politica

Then you have preconceived notions. You see it all the time. It happens on the pro tour. People from Alabama will compete in a tournament there and won't do so well. They get stuck on where the fish should be.

[At the same time, there is a growing pile of tidbits, in Roberts' opinions and in the Reagan-era documents dribbling out of the White House, that indicates he has strongly held and far-right views on major fronts—abortion, religion, and executive power. There's ammunition for principled opposition to be mined here. But the key attribute Roberts lacks from the point of view of the legal liberals, at least on the record, is an overarching, burn-the-house-down judicial philosophy. As a result, proponents of judicial restraint—an approach to the law that's become as fashionable among liberals as conservatives—are eager to embrace him as one of their own. Leftish advocates of restraint celebrate justices who don't reach out beyond the facts of a case to decide more than they need to and who respect existing Supreme Court precedent. They wrinkle their noses at justices who overtly seek to impose a rightward agenda (Antonin Scalia) and are willing to jettison past decisions to do it (Clarence Thomas). Roberts has never declared himself one of the bad guys, Sunstein pointed out hopefully in a recent piece in the New Republic . Instead he has styled himself as deliberate, lawyerly, process-oriented. His opinions on the D.C. Circuit court of appeals] avoid broad pronouncements, ... They do not try to reorient the law.