"Whatever deviates from the plain path of duty, or contradicts received opinions, seems to imply strength of will, or a strength of understanding, which seizes forcibly on the attention.  Whether it is fortitude or cowardice, or both, there is a strong propensity in the human mind, if its suspicions are once raised, to know the worst.  .... When once the fairy dream in which we have lulled our senses or imagination is disturbed, we ... revenge ourselves for the cheat which we think has been put upon us, by laughing at the credulity of those who are still its dupes.  Even the very love of virtue makes the mind ... impatient ... and prompts us to escape from tormenting suspense in total indifference, as jealousy cures itself by destroying its object.”  --  William Hazlitt, Of Rochefoucault's Maxims

My new book has been published

Although the puppet has no mind, it partakes of the intelligence of the puppeteer just in the sense that it is governed by his mind.  The loyal and well-trained sheepdog participates in the intelligence of the shepherd in better way, because the sheepdog does have a mind, and can recognize commands.  Yet the sheepdog does not understand why sheep should be herded; the idea of a reason why does not even occur to it.  A beloved herding dog may try to herd all of the members of its human family into a single room.  I have even seen a border collie “herd” all of the stones in the yard into a single pile.  Herding is just something it does.

More excellent by far is the way that a rational being participates in the intelligence of God, for our finite minds are so fashioned that in their limited way they can reflect His infinite thoughts.  He could have jerked us around like the puppet.  He could have directed us through instincts like the dog.  He could have refused us any share in His providence.  He could have arranged matters so that we never had to deliberate about what is to be done, never had to labor in order to grasp how the general principles of the natural law should be applied to the particular circumstances of our families, our friendships, or our commonwealths.  That is not His way with us.

We ask, “Why didn’t you make it easier?”  That is like asking, “What is man that Thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that Thou dost care for him?” -- but in the mode of a complaint.

"The state exists simply to promote and protect the ordinary happiness of human beings in this life.  A husband and wife chatting over a fire, a couple of friends having a game of darts in a pub, a man reading a book in his own room or digging in his own garden -- that is what the state is there for.  And unless they are helping to increase and prolong and protect such moments, all the laws, parliaments, armies, courts, police, economics, etc., are simply a waste of time.”  --  C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 4:8.

Even when the Constitution flatly forbids doing something – for example, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging freedom of speech or press – courts often weigh competing considerations to decide whether the “something” may be done, pleading that the meaning of the prohibition isn’t clear.

When courts require that different things be balanced, the only way to tell whether they have been balanced in the way the courts think they should be balanced is to go right back to the courts.  So you can see why some judges would love balancing tests.  They encourage litigation and make judges more important.  They increase their power at the expense of the power of legislators.

This is a dangerous tendency, because courts are far less well equipped to balance competing considerations than legislatures are.  That is the sort of thing legislators are for.

But wouldn’t this problem solve itself?  The Framers expected each branch to be jealous of the power of the others, so one would expect legislators to use their checks to resist the judicial invention of balancing tests.  One would think they would say that if it is really true that the meaning of a particular Constitutional prohibition isn’t clear, pinning its meaning down is a legislative, not a judicial job.

On the contrary, when issues are so hot that legislators are afraid to exercise their constitutional responsibilities for fear of what the voters might do, sometimes they even insist that courts use balancing tests.  They are only too happy to kick the ball into the courts.

My lecture this evening in Arlington, Virginia

Sometimes married grad students ask me when is the right time to have children.  After I get my degree?  After my wife gets hers (or my husband gets his)?  After I land a teaching job?  After I win tenure?  After I am established in my field?  You see how it goes; the right time never comes.

My suggestion:  Children change us.  Don’t wait to have children when the right time has come; the time becomes right when you have them.  If you were ready for marriage, you are ready for children.  Stop waiting.  Stop dithering.  Just begin.