This much I think I do know—that a society so riven that the spirit of moderation is gone, no court can save; that a society where that spirit flourishes, no court need save; that in a society which evades its responsibility by thrusting upon the courts the nurture of that spirit, that spirit in the end will perish.

Learned Hand, long-serving judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, voiced this warning in the mid‑20th century amid anxieties about democratic stability, ideological polarization, and the expanding expectation that courts would resolve fundamental social conflicts. Hand was skeptical of judicial “salvation” of democracy: he believed constitutional government ultimately depends on civic habits—especially restraint, tolerance, and willingness to compromise—rather than on judges imposing solutions from the bench. The passage reflects his broader theme that legal institutions can only channel, not create, the moral and political temper that sustains a free society.

Hand argues that courts are not a substitute for civic virtue. If a society has lost moderation—self-restraint, respect for opponents, and acceptance of limits—judicial decisions cannot repair the underlying fracture. Conversely, if moderation is alive, society does not require courts to “save” it because political and social institutions can manage conflict without judicial rescue. The most dangerous condition is when citizens offload the duty of cultivating moderation onto courts; that abdication corrodes the very spirit needed for constitutional democracy, leaving both politics and law brittle. The quote is a plea for democratic responsibility over judicial dependency.