“A prime part of the history of our Constitution is the story of the extension of constitutional rights to people once ignored or excluded.”

If we gave up our freedom as the price of security, we would no longer be the great nation that we are.

Each part of my life provided respite from the other and gave me a sense of proportion that classmates trained only on law studies lacked.

I remember envying the boys long before I even knew the word feminism, because I liked shop better than cooking or sewing.

Adult women are able to make decisions about their own lives’ course no less than men are.

Legislators know much more about elections than the Court does.

I would like to be remembered as someone who used whatever talent she had to do her work to the very best of her ability.

As society sees what women can do, as women see what women can do, there will be more women out there doing things, and we’ll all be better off for it.

In the course of a marriage, one accommodates the other.

Our system of justice is surely richer for the diversity of background and experience of its judges.

My mother told me to be a lady. And for her, that meant be your own person, be independent.

I conceived of myself in large part as a teacher.

Fight for the things that you care about, but do it in a way that will lead others to join you.

There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year.

Yet, as the numbers reveal, women in law, even today, are not entering a bias-free profession.

I think our system is being polluted by money.

Our mutual respect is only momentarily touched by our sometimes strong disagreements on what the law is.

[The] government has room to scale back individual rights during wartime without violating the Constitution. The Constitution just sets minimums. Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires.

Is it really so easy to determine that smacking someone in the face to find out where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited by the Constitution?

As long as judges tinker with the Constitution to ‘do what the people want,’ instead of what the document actually commands, politicians who pick and confirm new federal judges will naturally want only those who agree with them politically.

[International law] doesn’t show what the Constitution originally meant, and it doesn’t show what is fundamentally important to Americans today. It shows what’s fundamentally important to somebody else today.

There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.

The court’s job is to uphold the Constitution and you don’t call that off in times of crisis. Would the framers have allowed this practice?

A law can be both economic folly and constitutional.

Day by day, case by case, the Supreme Court is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize.