“It may sound counterintuitive, as it did to my aunt, but making judgments about what the law requires isn’t always the same thing as deciding what is just. In the Boston Marathon bombing case, the Court held that there was no legal impediment to executing Tsarnaev, not that executing him was moral. In Terry v. United States, the Court held that the law did not permit resentencing, not that Terry’s original sentence was fair. And in the flag-burning case, the Court held that the First Amendment protected that act of protest, not that flag burning is virtuous. In a system where judges are not Solomons, their role is limited. They are referees, not kings, because they decide whether people have played by the rules rather than what the rules should be. As much as some people might admire Solomon, he wouldn’t make it through a confirmation hearing if he proposed to decide cases in accordance with his own conscience. That’s as it should be under our Constitution.”