The famously rejected nominee takes on the Supreme Courts of the U.S., Canada and Israel and finds them representative of a great failing in western jurisprudence: i.e. seeking to make new law and, thus, to “legislate” instead of “adjudicate.” He had just published in 2003 a book laying out the argument that he presents quite forcefully in this discussion. And speaking of counter-factuals, how might our history have been different if he had been allowed onto the Supreme Court?