A judge must interpret statutes as written. And a judge must interpret the Constitution as written, informed by history and tradition and precedent.

The quote by Brett Kavanaugh reflects his judicial philosophy of adhering closely to the text of the law. When he says, “A judge must interpret statutes as written. And a judge must interpret the Constitution as written, informed by history and tradition and precedent,” he is emphasizing the importance of textualism and originalism—approaches to law that prioritize the plain meaning of legal texts and the intent of their framers. For Kavanaugh, a judge’s role is not to create new law but to apply the statutes and Constitution as they are written.

This statement also highlights the balance between respecting the text and acknowledging the role of history, tradition, and precedent. While Kavanaugh underscores that interpretation must be grounded in the words of the law, he also recognizes that legal understanding develops over time through judicial precedents. In this sense, his philosophy ties together a respect for the foundations of American law with the reality of how courts have historically applied those principles.

The origin of this quote comes from Kavanaugh’s confirmation process to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018, where he frequently articulated his judicial approach. As a federal judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals before his nomination, he had built a record of decisions reflecting these principles. His remarks were intended to reassure both lawmakers and the public that his judicial reasoning would remain anchored in established legal frameworks rather than personal or political preferences.

Ultimately, Kavanaugh’s words underline a philosophy of judicial restraint. By insisting that judges must interpret rather than make law, he positions the judiciary as a guardian of the Constitution rather than as an engine of change. His statement reflects a broader debate in American law between those who see the Constitution as a living document and those, like Kavanaugh, who argue it must be understood through its original text, shaped but not rewritten by history and precedent.