Quotes About Law

All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people out there with court of appeals experience, because court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know. I know.

The upshot of the Nixon tapes case was that any president is going to have an extremely hard time resisting a request from a law enforcement officer.

Just because you can buy an exploding target, does not mean that it is legal to mix and explode.

You reduce illegal immigration by making it harder to get jobs here, or easier to get jobs south of the border. This idea that we can't pass an immigration law until we hit some imaginary security target is just a way to derail reform.

This administration, this agency, the very agency charged with enforcing Obamacare, systematically targeted groups that came into existence because they opposed Obamacare - and they started the targeting the very month, March 2010, that Obamacare came into law - expects us to believe it is the work of two rogue agents in Cincinnati.

When shooting exploding rifle targets, check with local and state laws.

Targets don't fight crime; they hinder the fight against crime.

One of the fundamental pillars of international humanitarian law is that proper distinction should be made between military targets and civilians. That is why indiscriminate bombing, let alone the deliberate targeting of residential areas or agricultural infrastructure, is considered a war crime.

In the legislative branch, you make the laws... and our role as judges is to interpret the law, not to inject our own policy preferences. So our task is to give an honest construction to what laws are passed by the Legislature.

The task of a judge is not to make the law - it is to apply the law.

Though every legal task demands this skill, it is especially important in the effort to frame public policy in a way that is properly responsive to human needs and predicaments. The question is always: How will the general rule work in practice?

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.

It's a hard thing to legislate. You can't legislate good taste and you can't put a number on it in terms of square footage. It's a question of where individual rights end and community rights begin.

None of us believes in an untrammelled right to free speech. We all agree there are always going to be lines that, for the purposes of law and order, cannot be crossed; or for the purposes of taste and decency, should not be crossed. We differ only on where those lines should be drawn.

There certainly is a lot of political pressure for states to adopt the new federal tax codes. But there is no law that requires them to do so.

In income tax, there is no case for amnesty.

I'd think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires.

I can think of a number of things more interesting to read about than tax law, but few things affect our lives more.

If you have to change the law to get more money, that's a tax increase, and Americans for Tax Reform supports all efforts of tax reform, getting rid of deductions or credits, or something that's misclassified, as long as you at the same time reduce rates so that it's not a hidden tax.

All I'm doing is I'm filling out my tax returns - or my accountants are, and I'm paying whatever I'm supposed to pay, though I'm giving away a large amount of the money and that probably lowers my tax rate because I'm giving away so much money. But change the law, but don't blame me for the law. I'm not writing the law. I didn't write the law.

Multi-millionaires who pay half or less than half of the percentage of tax the rest of us pay justify their actions by saying they pay what the law requires. Though true, the fact is they found ways within the law to beat the purpose of the law - which, in the case of taxes, is that we all pay our fair share.

Governor Romney has paid 100 percent of his taxes that are owed. He has complied 100 percent with what the law requires.

The basic social contract is that citizens agree to follow the law, pay their taxes, and devote their love and loyalty to their country, and in exchange, the nation commits to preserve and protect and serve their interests, safeguard their freedom, and return to them in kind their first allegiance and loyalty.

If intelligent robots are our competitors and, to some extent, cerebrally alike - enough for us to discuss their ethical standing - why would they be above the law? Should they not contribute to our societies, too? And why would they be exempt from taxes?