Quotes About Court

A court is a place where what was confused before becomes more unsettled than ever.

Next day at the review the Tsar asked Prince Andrey where he desired to serve; and Bolkonsky ruined his chances for ever in the court world by asking to be sent to the front, instead of begging for a post in attendance on the Tsar's person.

Perhaps you think I'm losing the thread of my thought? Not a bit of it! I'm still telling you the story of how I murdered my wife, They asked me in court how I killed her, what I used to do it with. Imbeciles! They thought I killed her that day, the fifth of October, with a knife. It wasn't that day I killed her, it was much earlier. Exactly in the same way as they're killing their wives now, all of them...

Awaken me, lord, from the dream of despair, and let me describe my sin. I would not fall into the bewilderment to which your name invited me. I established a court, and I fell asleep under a crown, and I dreamed I could rule the wicked. Awaken me to the homeland of my heart where you are worshipped forever. Awaken me to the mercy of the breath which you breathe into me.

The duchess approached her health, her style, and her entire presentation with all that she had learned at the far more exotic Vatican court, and the practices of her father's homeland.

We've got to eventually get the Court on the right track with respect to super PACs and their influence on our political system. And whether that means an amendment to the Constitution or not is an open question.

Some may remember, if you have good memories, that there used to be a concept in Anglo-American law called a presumption of innocence, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Now that's so deep in history that there's no point even bringing it up, but it did once exist.

I believe indeterminate sentencing can be extremely useful, but I also believe that any such system should always take into consideration the special knowledge as to the facts in a case which only the trial judge possesses.

I disagree with Apple on many things - such as its exclusive use of proprietary software and arbitrary restrictions on users seeking to copy, share, edit, and create software on their devices. However, I strongly feel that defending its users' and customers' right to strong encryption in court is incredibly important.

I'm a little skeptical about using the Constitution this way, but I also believe marriage is between a man and a woman and that the courts shouldn't legislate this matter.

Too much negotiating and not enough work on the court - that's what happened to me during the lockout. Too much talking and not enough training. I couldn't put in my usual offseason work routine. I think that all caught up to me, with my Achilles problems.

As all of our lives become digital, the logic of encryption is all of our lives will be covered by strong encryption, and therefore all of our lives - including the lives of criminals and terrorists and spies - will be in a place that is utterly unavailable to court-ordered process. And that, I think, to a democracy should be very, very concerning.

I think it's pathetic that a court of law cannot be in a vacuum of the legal system, without the influence of the public threatening to do great bodily harm to people and property. It's really a pathetic statement for our country.

I deal with conflicts that irritate people and give them stress, like the dispute over a car payment. I can resolve those cases in a moment.

I was bullied by Subhash Ghai. He even took me to the court and wanted me to cancel my first show. It was quite stressful. He sent a message to all the producers that nobody should work with me.

Jury selection is strictly an emotional process. They're looking for people they can manipulate. Both sides are.

If the court strikes down the Defense of Marriage Act, is that a 'liberal' result enabling gay couples married in states where gay marriage is legal to enjoy the same economic advantages that federal laws now grant to straight couples? Or is it a 'conservative' ruling, limiting the federal government's ability to override state power?

Judges have to have the humility to recognize that they operate within a system of precedent, shaped by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath.

Although the FCC has tried to introduce net neutrality rules to avoid abusive practices like favoring your own services over others, they have struggled because there has been more than one court case in which it was asserted the FCC didn't have the authority to punish ISPs for abusing their control over the broadband channel.

It's not simply to say, 'My colleagues are wrong, and I would do it this way,' but the greatest dissents do become court opinions.

In my own opinions as a judge, I have never yet had occasion to find a statute ambiguous.

You don't want to be down 2-0 in a series. It's always important to try and get one on the opponent's home court. It makes your job at home easier.

I'm just an ordinary judge from California.

The court makes an amazing amount of decisions that ought to be made by the people.