Ever the maverick, Judge Richard Posner, 78, stunned the legal community Friday by announcing his immediate retirement from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The influential Chicago judge was known for his wit, no-nonsense writing style and his provocative commentary on law, politics and society—which he offered both on and off the bench. Unlike most federal judges, Posner gave interviews and rarely held back—even when the topic was the U.S. Supreme Court.

Upon news of Posner's retirement, University of Iowa law professor Andy Grewal cracked on Twitter: “Whoa … I guess once he's off the bench, Posner will finally feel free to tell us what he *really* thinks.”

We suspect it's not the last we'll hear from Posner. But as he ends his judicial career, here's a snapshot of some favorite Posner zingers on a variety of topics.

READ MORE: Richard Posner, Influential US Appeals Judge, Quits the Bench

Pro-tip: 'There Is No Need for Jargon' “I think there is no need for terminological complexity in law. I think everything we do, the judges do, can be expressed in ordinary English. And I would think it very desirable for opinions to be written in a way that everybody can read it.” Posner wrote in one ruling last year: “Judicial opinions are littered with stale, opaque, confusing jargon. There is no need for jargon, stale or fresh. Everything judges do can be explained in straightforward language—and should be.” [ The National Law Journal] 'Burn All Copies of the Bluebook' “At the level of form, the first thing to do is burn all copies of the Bluebook, in its latest edition 560 pages of rubbish, a terrible time waster for law clerks employed by judges who insist as many do that the citations in their opinions conform to the Bluebook.” [ Green Bag] Age Limits for Judges? Yes. “I believe there should be mandatory retirement for all judges at a fixed age, probably 80.” [ Slate] What's With the Republican Party These Days? “I've become less conservative since the Republican Party started becoming goofy.” [ NPR] When Judges Change Their Minds “If the judge just says, based on what I now know, I think I may have voted incorrectly (or I did vote incorrectly), I don't see any problem with that. The important thing is that the judge's opinions indicate that he approached the case in a responsible, informed, and fair-minded way.” [ The National Law Journal] Relying on Moral Conviction Is OK “I wouldn't consider it proper for a judge in a case to invoke or rely on idiosyncratic moral convictions, but I think it proper for a judge to rely on the general, broadly held moral convictions of his society, provided those convictions are both pertinent to the case at hand and not overridden by other considerations that judges have to take account of. [ Slate] Why Class Actions May Be the Worst Form of Litigation—Except All the Others “The realistic alternative to a class action is not 17 million individual suits, but zero individual suits, as only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30.” [ Carnegie v. Household International] 'The Ostrich Is a Noble Animal' “The ostrich is a noble animal, but not a proper model for an appellate advocate,” Posner wrote in a November 2011 ruling that featured an illustration of a man in a suit burying his head in the sand. The lawyer who was the target of Posner's line wasn't laughing. He told the Chicago Tribune: “I think it's inappropriate. I think it takes some dignity away from the court.” What's the Big Deal About Privacy, Anyway? “If someone drained my cell phone, they would find a picture of my cat, some phone numbers, some email addresses, some email text. What's the big deal?” [ PCWorld] Eviscerating Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage “[T]he only rationale that the states put forth with any conviction—that same-sex couples and their children don't need marriage because same-sex couples can't produce children, intended or unintended—is so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously. … Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be denied the right to marry. Go figure.” [ Baskin v. Bogan] 'Scalia Is Doing Legislative History' “[Antonin] Scalia is a pertinacious critic of the use of legislative history to illuminate statutory meaning; and one reason for his criticism is that a legislature is a hydra-headed body whose members may not share a common view of the interpretive issues likely to be engendered by a statute that they are considering enacting. But when he looks for the original meaning of eighteenth-century constitutional provisions—as he did in his opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, holding that an ordinance forbidding people to own handguns even for the defense of their homes violated the Second Amendment—Scalia is doing legislative history.” [ New Republic] On the Eventuality of His Own Retirement “As long as my physical health holds up and senility holds off, I will continue to work as I have. I am one of those people who dread retirement. I hope I won't overstay my welcome.” [