Quotes About Supreme court

He committed the state to a permanent reciprocal relationship. It hardly matters what the legal papers say because in an oral relationship the legal relationship is oral. That is why the Supreme Court so often decides for the Aboriginal side.

And now, at last, the Supreme Court has made it perfectly clear that the Manitoba Métis had been cheated out of their land by the Government of Canada. That is, by you and me. That the Government of Canada betrayed the Honour of the Crown. And we are the Crown. You and I.

In addition, the Supreme Court has explained that children have rights independent of their parents: Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow that they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves.111

I will endorse the Supreme Court's unfairly maligned opinion in Employment Div. v. Smith, and I will argue that there is no constitutional right to harm others simply because the conduct is religiously motivated. The Court's First Amendment doctrine is wise. Legislatures can exempt the religious from some laws, but only where legislators and prosecutors ask the hard questions and where the religious entities have borne the burden of proving that exempting them renders significant harm.

One is entitled to say without qualification that the correlation between prior judicial experience and fitness for the Supreme Court is zero.

The Supreme Court kept me from my freedom.

When the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, Sarah Palin tweeted, 'Obama lies; freedom dies.' She's referring, I guess, to the freedom to go without health care when you're sick.

Today, no less than five Supreme Court justices are on record, either through their opinions or speeches (or both), that they will consult foreign law and foreign-court rulings for guidance in certain circumstances. Of course, policymakers are free to consult whatever they want, but not justices. They're limited to the Constitution and the law.

A new era, however, began toward the end of Reconstruction when the US Supreme Court's ruling in the Slaughter-House Cases (1873) gave state legislatures the authority to determine what actions constituted violations of a person's civil rights. The

In February 1873, the US Supreme Court heard the appeal of a group of cases from Louisiana consolidated as the Slaughter-House Cases (1873). The Court's ruling reversed the liberal direction that the nation was moving in, that is, toward equalizing the political rights of all citizens. The justices ruled that state legislatures had the power to determine what social practices in everyday life constituted discriminatory actions and violated a person's constitutional rights.

By 1908, future justice Louis Brandeis was able present the United States Supreme Court, in Muller v. Oregon, with more than 100 studies on the need to protect women against overwork. The strategy worked, and state regulation of women's work was declared to be constitutional. Yet notably, just three years earlier another court had rejected similar regulation of an industry in which men bore among the heaviest burdens, namely baking.[337

As recently as 1991, the Supreme Court upheld a Washington State ruling outlawing peyote. Freedom of religion, as I said before, seems to apply only to whites. For

He spoke of love and the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has also allowed § 1983 actions to redress "dormant" Commerce Clause violations—claims that state or local regulations discriminate against or unduly burden interstate commerce.

In fundamental respects, the Constitution does not mean what it says. It means what the Supreme Court says it means. Or, more particularly, it means what five Supreme Court justices say it means at any particular time.

Tyson Foods, the largest chicken-producing corporation in the world,2304 found itself before the Supreme Court in 2005 for refusing to pay workers for time spent donning protective clothing at a poultry plant. The Court ruled unanimously against Tyson.2305

I can't say, 'I want to put a Protestant on the Court for better representation.' No, you can't say that. But I should be able to. You should be able to have the main religion in this country represented on the Supreme Court.

But after a frustrated Franklin Roosevelt threatened to enlarge the high bench and pack it with his partisans, Justice Owen Roberts, in the infamous switch in time that saved nine, stopped finding New Deal legislation unconstitutional, so that 5–4 decisions against FDR became majority decisions allowing his schemes.

We all learn about how the Constitution's framers accomplished that delicate balance through the three branches of government and the separation of their powers: democratically elected representatives frame laws to do the voters' will, which the elected president executes, unless the Supreme Court deems them unconstitutional.

For a half century, the Supreme Court, through increasingly fanciful legal reasoning, has handed the political Left victories in the culture wars—on race, sex, criminal justice, public order, schooling—that it would have found bruising, and sometimes impossible, to win through the constitutional legislative process.

American Supreme Court intervened, and its decision in the 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is one of those rare moments in history when freedom of speech made an unequivocal advance.

Those with a traditional view of sexual morality-not all of them traditionally religious, by any means-denounce homosexuality as an impermissible detour from the natural course of sexuality. Indeed, the ancient notion of "the abominable and detestable crime against nature" has retained much of its emotional force, and may even be said to have provided the inner logic behind the Supreme Court's decision to uphold state antisodomy statutes.

Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments—the ones abolishing slavery and guaranteeing citizenship rights—still exist, but they've been so weakened by custom, by Congress and the various state legislatures, and by recent Supreme Court decisions that they don't much matter.

Sitting here on the steps of the Supreme Court smoking weed, under the "Equal Justice Under Law" motto, staring into the stars, I've finally figured out what's wrong with Washington, D.C. It's that all the buildings are more or less the same height and there's absolutely no skyline, save for the Washington Monument touching the night sky like a giant middle finger to the world.