In my work as a Supreme Court justice, I was required by the Constitution to fairly and impartially apply the law—not the law as I wanted it to be but the law as it was. Now, as a private citizen, I am anxious about the state of the judiciary in America. I am not concerned about particular judges or cases, nor am I concerned about the judiciary shifting right or left.What worries me is the manner in which politically motivated interest groups are attempting to interfere with justice. The rule of law in the U.S. includes statutes and constitutional provisions. It also involves precedent, which is a previous judicial ruling on a matter. A judge typically defers to precedent. Like good cooking, good judging requires taking ingredients and procedures used successfully in the past and adjusting them to the case at hand. New legal recipes—or rules—can have major ramifications. So if a judge comes up with a new way to apply the law, her opinion may be reviewed by state or federal appellate courts to ensure that it is a correct interpretation of the law. If it’s not, it’s overturned. Thus, our judicial system has safeguards to ensure consistency and preservation of the law. But it is threatened when judges ignore settled law and make decisions according to personal or public preferences. The judiciary currently is experiencing unprecedented pressure from interest groups to make decisions that are based on politics. In Washington, D.C., we hear a lot about federal judges, and they have