Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens

In reading an article by Jeffrey Toobin in The New Yorker I noted this quote which helps me understand the thinking - and problem, in my mind - with the "liberal" wing of the Court:


"If it is not necessary to decide a case on a very broad constitutional ground, when other grounds are available, then doesn't that create the likelihood that people will think you're not following the rules?"


Seems to me ALL cases should be analyzed "on a very broad constitutional ground" and only on other grounds if it is found they are not at odds with the constitution. Is our law not controlled by the Constitution?

Can someone explain his logic to me?