Quotes About Judiciary

Obscenity is whatever gives a judge an erection.

The appointment of judges to the higher judiciary cannot be the sole domain of a few members of the higher judiciary. This turf must be shared.

For almost twenty years, abortion policy in America has been controlled by the courts.

It is a very great mistake, common to counsel, and especially to young counsel, to consider that a decision of any court must necessarily command the respect of another.

The administration of justice is the firmest pillar of government.

How we decide the vexed issue of the method of selection of judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts would determine the future of our democracy and the rule of law in the country. We are faced with the twin problem of selecting the best judges and also ensuring that the judiciary would be insulated from executive interference.

When politicians don black robes and seize powers they do not have, they should be called out for what they are - usurpers and petty tyrants.

There is no, and cannot be, any situation in which we don't respect the law and the judiciary. It is unacceptable to attack the courts; criticism is allowed, but attacks are not. It shakes the basis of our democracy.

For any unbiased and realistic enquiry against judges, one needs a full time body, independent of the government as well as of the judiciary, with an investigative machinery under its control, through which it can get complaints investigated.

We do not sit as a super-legislature to weigh the wisdom of legislation.

Unfortunately, what many people forget is that judges are just lawyers in robes.

My sense is that jurists from other nations around the world understand that our court occupies a very special place in the American system, and that the court is rather well regarded in comparison, perhaps, to their own.

The future chief justice of the United States told the delegates that an independent federal judiciary was a necessary bulwark against an overreaching Congress. If Congress were to exceed its powers, said Marshall, it would be the duty of the judiciary to declare the action void. Marshall

The Supreme Court has a very light backlog. They leave a lot of splits among the circuits, a lot of uncertainty. And I think they ought to work a lot harder.

My uncle's a lawyer and I remember going to see him in court and thinking, 'That's cool, too bad I could never be a lawyer.'

What secret knowledge, one must wonder, is breathed into lawyers when they become Justices of this Court that enables them to discern that a practice which the text of the Constitution does not clearly proscribe, and which our people have regarded as constitutional for 200 years, is in fact unconstitutional?

In the legislative arena, especially when the country is closely divided, compromises tend to be the rule the day. But when judges rule this or that policy unconstitutional, there's little room for compromise: One side must win, the other must lose.

Nationwide injunctions undermine the democratic process, depart from history and tradition, violate constitutional principles, and impede sound judicial administration, all at the cost of public confidence in our institutions and particularly in our courts as apolitical decision-makers dispassionately applying objective law.

I think that the legitimacy of the court would be undermined in any case if the court made a decision based on its perception of public opinion.

There is a danger to judicial independence when people have no understanding of how the judiciary fits into the constitutional scheme.

America should meet its obligations in the form of Social Security, Medicare, our ability to pay our military, legally binding legislation that allows unemployment compensation, the judiciary, the federal court system, the federal prison system, all those kinds of things have to be paid for.

Unfortunately, what many people forget is that judges are just lawyers in robes.

Just as judges have enormous stake in the appointment of judicial officers in the higher judiciary, the government has an equal stake. Since both of us have stakes in the appointment of members of the higher judiciary, the consultation of both of them is absolutely necessary. The government must have a say.

My work on the Judiciary Committee has made me more aware of the InfoWars content than when I appeared previously in a very standard and respectful interview.