Laws that impinge your constitutionally protected right to earn an honest living must not be preposterous.
When writing, I split my time between my chambers and my satellite office: my neighborhood Chick-fil-A. It offers the word-nerd trifecta: I bring Bose headphones; they provide Wi-Fi and waffle fries.
Judges should always behave judicially by adjudicating, never politically by legislating. I leave policy to policymakers. They're preeminent, but they're not omnipotent. In other words, lawmakers decide if laws pass, but judges decide if laws pass muster.
Re-election comes every six years, which explains why I spend so much time on Twitter. If you're an obscure judge whose name ID hovers between infinitesimal and zilch, it's political malpractice to neglect social media. I'm probably the tweetingest judge in America, which, admittedly, is like being the tallest Munchkin in Oz.
If judicial review means anything, it is that judicial restraint does not allow everything.
If legislators come to believe that police power is an ever-present constitutional trump card they can play whenever it suits them, overreaching is inexorable.
