Quotes About Judiciary

Roosevelt got a chance to name an amazing nine justices of the Supreme Court. He was not namby-pamby on this question. He wanted people who shared his views, he wanted liberals, and he wanted lots of them.

I'm a law-and-order guy. I mean, I confess I'm a social conservative, but it does not affect my views on cases.

If you believe that through putting the judiciary under political control you can make it a better judiciary, you are wrong, and you are violating your own obligations under European treaties.

A government of laws, and not of men

I'm absolutely confident that everybody that's been put to death is two things: One, they're guilty of the crime charged, and, secondly, they had full access to our courts, both state and federal.

Congress has the power to make laws, but the president can veto them, and vetoes can be overridden only by congressional supermajorities. The president and his executive branch enforce the laws, but there is congressional and judicial oversight. The judiciary interprets the Constitution and the laws, but judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

For all their dissimilarities, the two men spoke a common language: violence. Both despised the Jeffersonian ideals of popular governance, reasoned debate, freedom of expression, an independent judiciary, and fair electoral competition. Both struck remorselessly at enemies within and outside their parties.

A commander in chief who tries to circumvent the Constitution should be restrained by the legislature and judiciary.

If Trump insists that judges are biased and calls the American criminal system a "laughingstock," what is to stop an autocratic leader like Duterte of the Philippines from discrediting his own judiciary?

And, you are no doubt familiar with the 1983 Supreme Court decision, the name escapes me right now, in which the Court ruled that before a person can be thrown in jail for not paying a fine it must be proven that he or she was willfully not paying. In other words, he could pay but he refused. All this and more, right?

Ours is not a justice system. Ours is a legal system.

Judges' rulings on particular cases of such death row confinement have declared it cruel and unusual, a form of torture, as have international jurists.

The intensive and concerted effort to exclude references to religion or God from public places is an attack on our founding principles. It's an attempt to bolster a growing reliance on the government--especially the judiciary--as the source of our rights. But if our rights are not unalienable, if they don't come from a source higher than ourselves, then they're malleable at the will of the state. This is a prescription for tyranny.

Hamilton wrote, "so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.

We still have real jury trials, honest judges, and free elections, all the superficial characteristics of a functional, free democracy. But underneath that surface is a florid and malevolent bureaucracy that mostly (not absolutely, but mostly) keeps the rich and the poor separate through thousands of tiny, scarcely visible inequities.

When you come in to court as a plaintiff or as a defendant, it is terribly important that you look up at the bench and feel that that person represents you and will understand you, that that person is reflective of our community and of our society.

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.

A federal judge did as he was supposed to do and upheld the Constitution. We should be thankful that we have judiciary that will do that.

en todo el mundo es fácil observar un renovado activismo político del poder judicial.

Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution.

In 1984, Fred Korematsu went back to federal court, seeking to have his conviction voided retroactively on the theory that the government had withheld crucial facts from the judiciary. The court agreed with him. The Department of Justice and the Army, it found, had distorted the record to make it appear that there was a legitimate security concern.113 A few years later, Congress granted reparations of twenty thousand dollars to each Japanese-American who had been interned.

The power to tax is not the power to destroy while this Court sits.

You don't buy a Supreme Court judge," Max said. "Nobody ever has.