My concern was whether I could do the job of a justice well enough to convince the nation that my appointment was the right move.
What secret knowledge, one must wonder, is breathed into lawyers when they become Justices of this Court that enables them to discern that a practice which the text of the Constitution does not clearly proscribe, and which our people have regarded as constitutional for 200 years, is in fact unconstitutional?
There is no doubt that dissents can serve a useful role by explaining when a justice thinks the majority has gone off the deep end. But unanimity also sends its own powerful message - one that might be eclipsed in the headlines by a sensational dissent but could ultimately have a greater impact.
Even one justice can advance or reverse the progress of our journey.
I served in two administrations very high up in the Justice Department.
I might disagree with the way the court modifies one of my opinions but I will keep that to myself. I don’t think it is a proper role for a retired supreme court justice to comment on current decisions. What I think doesn’t matter any more.
At the time of the interview she had retired from the bench.
The nature of the job of attorney general has changed - irrevocably. And we should never again have an attorney general, of either party, capable of expressing surprise at the role that national security issues now play in the life of the Justice Department or in the role of its chief.
A Supreme Court justice is sometimes a liberal on one issue and a conservative on another.