This article reviews arguments about limitations on judicial competence or capacity, focusing on the need to go beyond such arguments to understand courts and their problems. Theoretical limitations on the competence and capacity of courts are compared with the record of judicial performance. The study examines performance in three areas in which courts are most likely to be thought ineffective: (1) cases involving unrepresented defendants, such as debtors or tenants; (2) disputes among persons with intimate or ongoing relationships; (3) extended impact cases. It is shown that courts adapt to changing circumstances and perform quite well, even with these difficult types of cases. Reforms are still needed, but rather than focusing narrowly on the courts, they should be directed at a wider range of social goals, such as strengthening family and community institutions which have been diminished by increasing urbanization and industrialization.