Quotes About Judiciary

Once the Constitution was ratified, Congress quickly turned to the task of setting up a court system within the Article III framework. The Judiciary Act of 1789, often called the First Judiciary Act, established two tiers of lower courts: thirteen district courts that followed state lines, each with its own district judge, and three circuit courts, for the Eastern, Middle, and Southern Circuits.

But the Judiciary Act did not provide for judges to staff the circuit courts. Instead, the circuits would be staffed during their two annual sittings by two Supreme Court justices and one district judge.

Between 1799 and 1810 the legislatures of New Jersey, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania passed statutes forbidding the state courts from citing any cases decided by English courts after July 4, 1776.

And yet, over time, the Court and the public seem to maintain a certain equilibrium. Public opinion polls regularly reflect that "diffuse" approval for the Supreme Court—that is, approval of the institution in general, rather than of particular actions—is higher than for other institutions of government.

The struggle between the Court and the president, dramatically present in cases growing out of the Bush administration's response

if a judge on coming to the bench were to decide to seal himself off hermetically from all manifestations of public opinion, he would accomplish very little; he would not be influenced by current public opinion, but instead would be influenced by the state of public opinion at the time he came to the bench.

This was the inauspicious background for the nomination by John Adams of John Marshall, his secretary of state, to be the nation's fourth chief justice. Marshall, a Virginian and combat veteran of the Revolutionary War, was forty-five years old, until this day the youngest person ever to assume the office

Section 13 of the Judiciary Act, in which Congress gave the Court jurisdiction to decide original mandamus actions like Marbury's, was therefore unconstitutional and no mandamus could be issued. The decision gave the Court a measure of insulation at a time of political turmoil; without an order, the Jefferson administration had nothing to complain about.

Was Hayburn's Case, then, the first instance of the Supreme Court declaring an act of Congress unconstitutional? Not formally.

the Court occupies a place in the public imagination.

I do not believe there are any circumstances in which a judge should consider his or her own values or policy preferences in determining what the law means.

What five members of the Supreme Court say the law is may be something vastly different from what Congress intended the law to be.

Since when has the Congress become protector of judiciary? Do I have to remind how Indira Gandhi treat the judiciary when one verdict went against them? Rajeev Gandhi in 1988 almost brought the bill, and during that phase, how many cases were filed against the media? And their son and grandson is talking about press freedom.

We all need good laws, and an independent, impartial, and efficient judiciary to verify the constitutionality of those laws.

I don't think the Constitution is studied almost anywhere, including law schools. In law schools, what they study is what the court said about the Constitution. They study the opinions. They don't study the Constitution itself.

The rules of evidence in the main are based on experience, logic, and common sense, less hampered by history than some parts of the substantive law.

There are some women I definitely would not want to succeed me... but a man like David Souter, that would be great.

There's simply no way the day-to-day operations of a polity as huge as the Solarian League—even if it loses half its systems, which it won't—can be effectively overseen by a legislative branch. And the judiciary can't, either, because in the nature of things, the wheels of justice turn way too slowly. And letting the executive branch supervise and regulate itself is a recipe for disaster.

I love being a judge, and I anticipate being a judge for the rest of my life.

Unlike other countries, where the apex court is only the court of final appeal in criminal matters, Pakistan's Supreme Court acts politically to directly make pronouncements in response to media articles or petitions by political rivals. One need not be convicted of disloyalty to the state after due process of law when innuendo, fabricated media reports and public comments by Supreme Court judges can suffice to tarnish reputations and cut public support.

LYNCHED BECAUSE THE JURY ACQUITTED HIM The entire system of the judiciary of this country is in the hands of white people. To this add the fact of the inherent prejudice against colored people, and it will be clearly seen that a white jury is certain to find a Negro prisoner guilty if there is the least evidence to warrant such a finding. Meredith Lewis was arrested in Roseland, La., in July of last year. A white jury found him not guilty of the crime of murder wherewith he stood charged.

The rule of law and the independence of the judiciary underpin our democracy and lie at the heart of our way of life. They are the very cornerstone of our freedoms.

The Supreme Court must never be viewed as a partisan institution.

A national legal organization is giving very serious thought to using The Betrayal of America as a legal basis for asking the House Judiciary Committee to institute impeachment proceedings against these five justices.