The best way to understand how and why people do what they do is not always to rely on their own explanations. Although such accounts cannot be ignored entirely, there is little reason to place exclusive weight on them, especially if they are retrospective. People often do things for very different reasons than they think. And, on occasion, they act for reasons that are quite the opposite of what they think. Not surprisingly, this is equally true of judges. In striving to understand how and why judges judge as they do, their own explanations are simply one source of elucidation. While it is essential to factor in these personal introspections, it is also important to treat them with a healthy degree of skepticism. Of course, the more reflective and self-critical these reflections are, the better and more reliable they might be.

Some judges, like Tom Denning (see Chapter 6), seem to lack any genuine capacity for serious self-scrutiny; they draw on their deeper instincts and insights with few qualms or equivocations. Others, however, possess a rare ability to step back and give their initial arguments and conclusions a rigorous cross-examination. One of those who has possessed such a quality and sought to incorporate it into his judgments is the singular Albie Sachs. A South African whose life was as far from that of the traditional judge as any likely could be, he managed to negotiate that informative dynamic between the demands of judicial office and the hard-earned experience of his personal life with a rare and revealing aplomb. A full appreciation of his legal judgments and his autobiographical musings offers a portrait of a complex man who wrestles with as he embodies what it means to be great judge.