Police, prosecution and defense attorneys, legislators, and lower courts need reasonably objective and clear legal principles in order to do their work. These principles enable them to treat substantially similar cases in a similar manner. Some say recent Supreme Court decisions that are vague and propose no clear standards are dispensing justice "by the length of the Chancellor's foot," a reference to the broad discretion granted to medieval chancellors in courts of equity. Several Supreme Court cases illustrating Chancellor's foot justice are discussed. The broad discretion used by the Justices in deciding these cases has resulted in confusion among those looking for a definite rule or test. Judicial self-restraint requires that the Justices balance interests in order to arrive at guiding standards. They must tell lower courts, litigators, and legislators, in clear terms, how they balanced the scales of justice and came to a conclusion based on legal precedent.