Politicians often like to believe that we exist to make law - and that only through constantly changing the law we achieve our policy objectives. That view of political leadership is mistaken.

Writing laws is easy, but governing is difficult.

Some people think that being in government for a long time is a bad thing. But the more you stay, the more you learn. I am now an expert in governance.

The Senate is extremely slow: They have enormous difficulty passing the bills that even get through the House. That's the reality that I've recognized in my two years: that it takes time to change the world.

The trouble with liberal democracy is that it takes a long time to mature.

I want to affect change. I like to advocate. I like to influence legislative change, and I have helped pass more than 10 laws.

I have been a victim of bad legislation and I want to change it. I want to make legislation that's for the people.

I'm a lawyer and I've been a judge, but there's one thing that I have not done so far and that is to make laws, I would love a plan to join politics and to run for a political office as a member of parliament and therefore join the legislature.

State government works much better than probably most average Missourians think it does. The biggest thing that I realized — and it took me awhile to get this — was that the ability to change or to craft policy differences in this building takes a long time. At first, that's very aggravating to understand.

Change can take years — before it happens all at once.

When I first started running for Congress, I was thinking about the ability to make laws as state attorney, we're the executive branch of the government and there was a lot of frustration because unjust laws produce unjust execution of laws,

In truth, most people already believe there is too much legislation and yearn for a more considered and more restricted approach. I embrace that sense of legislative restraint.

In all controversies, it is better to wait the decisions of time, which are slow and sure, than to take those of synods, which are often hasty and injudicious

My philosophy has been and continues to be that [the Court] cannot and should not try to seize the initiative in shaping the policy of the law, either by constitutional interpretation or by statutory construction. While the line to be drawn between interpretation and legislation is difficult, and numerous dissents turn upon it, there is a limit beyond which the Court incurs the just charge of trying to supersede the law-making branches. Every Justice has been accused of legislating and every one has joined in that accusation of others. When the Court has gone too far, it has provoked reactions which have set back the cause it is designed to advance and has sometimes called down upon itself severe rebuke.