On Antitrust law: Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings, 8/5/1986, transcript http://a255.g.akamaitech.net/7/255/2422/22sep20051120/www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh99-1064/31-110.pdf at p. 36).
1980s
“I write to understand as much as to be understood.”
"Confessio Fidei" http://archive.org/stream/outspokenessays00ingeiala#page/24/mode/2up/search/I+have+never+understood+why+it+should+be+considered+derogatory+to+the+Creator+to+suppose+that+he+has+a+sense+of+humour, Outspoken Essays (Second Series) (1922)
Of Laws.
Political, Moral, and Miscellaneous Reflections (1750), Political Thoughts and Reflections
Diamond Dogs, Chapter 11 (p. 135)
Short fiction, Diamond Dogs, Turquoise Days (2003)
1830s, The Lyceum Address (1838)
Context: When I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws, or that grievances may not arise for the redress of which no legal provisions have been made. I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say that although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still, while they continue in force, for the sake of example they should be religiously observed. So also in unprovided cases. If such arise, let proper legal provisions be made for them with the least possible delay, but till then let them, if not too intolerable, be borne with.
Interview with LA Times http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/62386e.htm (23 June 1986)
1980s, Second term of office (1985–1989)
Context: I have never given a litmus test to anyone that I have appointed to the bench.... I feel very strongly about those social issues, but I also place my confidence in the fact that the one thing that I do seek are judges that will interpret the law and not write the law. We've had too many examples in recent years of courts and judges legislating. They're not interpreting what the law says and whether someone has violated it or not. In too many instances, they have been actually legislating by legal decree what they think the law should be, and that I don't go for. And I think that the two men that we're just talking about here, Rehnquist and Scalia, are interpreters of the Constitution and the law.
Speech https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1887/mar/28/motion-for-leave-first-reading#column_1656 in the House of Commons (28 March 1887) introducing the Irish Crimes Bill
Chief Secretary for Ireland
“But I still couldn't figure out what it all meant. The more I found out, the less I understood.”
Source: Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
