'You really can't judge judges unless you know the materials that they're working with. You can't say, "Oh, this is a good decision and this was a good Court," simply because you like the result. It seems to you that the person, who deserved to win, won. That's not the business judges are in.
We don't sit here to make the law, to decide who ought to win. We decide who wins under the law that the people have adopted. And very often, if you're a good judge, you don't really like the result you're reaching. You would rather that the other side had won, and it seems to you a foolish law.
But in this job -- it's garbage in, garbage out. If it's a foolish law, you are bound by oath to produce a foolish result because it's not your job to decide what is foolish and what isn't. It's the job of the people across the street.
So don't judge judges unless you really take the trouble to read the opinion and see what provisions of law were at issue and what they were trying to reconcile and whether they did an honest job of reconciling them, and if interpreting the words of the law in a fair fashion. That's what counts. Unless that's what you want your judges to do, you have a judiciary that's not worth much. You have a judiciary that is just making the law instead of being faithful to what the people have decided.'
I know this is a broad generalization but typically a conservative judge goes for strict interpretation and a liberal judge goes for desired outcome.