Judges can then say that they decided the case on its facts, thereby preserving some degree of flexibility for the next case. While this may be appropriate for trial courts, or for state courts, it is seldom the best approach for the Supreme Court or an appellate court. Whenever possible, the Court and judges generally should adopt clear, bright-line rules. . . . Rules not only provide private parties with notice, but also limit judicial discretion. . . .
Broader rules are more likely to be impartial as to how they affect specific parties.
Justice Thomas, like Justice Scalia, defends originalism as a method of constitutional interpretation on the grounds that it minimizes judicial discretion.