Recent memoirs by the Justices reveal how a new vision of restraint has led to radical outcomes. To understand how grudging Amy Coney Barrett's new book is when it comes to revealing personal details, consider that one of the family members the Supreme Court Justice most often refers to is a great-grandmother who died five years before she was born. On Barrett's desk at home, she recounts in " Listening to the Law," she keeps a photograph of her great-grandmother's one-story house, where, as a widow during the Great Depression, she raised some of her thirteen children and took in other needy relatives. "Looking at the photo reminds me of a woman who stretched herself beyond all reasonable capacity," Barrett explains. "I'm not sure that I'll be able to manage my life with the same grace that she had. But she motivates me to keep trying." For Barrett, the mother of seven children, that effort entails setting her alarm for 5 "Our kids get up at six thirty during the school year, so I start early if I want to accomplish anything on my own to-do list," she writes. This is what passes for disclosure from Barrett; she measures out the details of her life with coffee spoons, careful not to spill.

As our Supreme Court weighed the First Amendment implications of brutal video games back in 2011, Justice Samuel Alito cut in with a sarcastic jab: "Well, I think what Justice Scalia wants to know is what James Madison thought about video games. Laurence H. Tribe is the Carl M. Loeb University Professor and professor of constitutional law at Harvard University. Tribe and Matz are the co-authors of Uncertain Justice: The Roberts Court and the Constitution." This wasn't the first time that scientific advances had divided these super-conservative justices--and that speaks to a crucial point. While the confirmation hearings for Judge Neil Gorsuch will involve familiar debates over how to read the Constitution, judicial orientations toward new technology can scramble the fields in surprising ways.