Quotes About Judiciary

Equal Justice Under Law.

judiciary, it was simply not equipped to execute large numbers of its citizens. The task had to be privatized.

In order to keep the judiciary independent of the executive, the constitution provided impeachment as the only method for disciplining errant judges.

The retention of the power to punish for contempt for acts of speech alone, which do not directly interfere with the administration of justice, has removed the last shred of accountability of the higher judiciary in the country.

The right of the judge to inflict punishment gives him both power and opportunity to oppress the innocent; yet none but crazy men will from thence determine that it is best to have neither a legislature nor judges.

A law can be both economic folly and constitutional.

I firmly believe in the rule of law as the foundation for all of our basic rights.

Les avocats sont bien loin de vouloir introduire dans le système judiciaire quelque amélioration que ce soit, alors que tout accusé, même le plus simple d'esprit – et c'est très caractéristique – commence toujours, dès son premier contact avec la justice, par méditer des projets de réforme, gaspillant ainsi un temps et des forces qu'il pourrait employer beaucoup plus utilement.

Ali svi se slažu u tome da se ne podižu lakomislene optužbe i da se sud, kad jedanput nekog optuži i kad je uvjeren u krivicu optuženog, vrlo teÅ¡ko može razuvjeriti. »TeÅ¡ko?« upita slikar i diže ruku uvis. »Sud se nikada ne mo?e razuvjeriti. Kad bih ovdje na platnu naslikao sve sudije redom i kad biste se Vi pred tim platnom branili imali biste viÅ¡e uspjeha nego pred pravim sudom« »

Republicans can nominate bad Justices, too. Earl Warren, William Brennan, Harry Blackmun, David Souter... the list goes on.

There's no question that Roberts will vote like William Rehnquist... If he swings, it will be from right to far right.

It would be a very good thing for all involved - the country, an independent judiciary, and the Left itself - if liberals take a page from David von Drehle and their own judges of the New Deal era, kick their addiction to constitutional litigation, and return to their New Deal roots of trying to win elections rather than lawsuits.

The bedrock of our democracy is the rule of law and that means we have to have an independent judiciary, judges who can make decisions independent of the political winds that are blowing.

It is not the responsibility of the judiciary to amend poor legislative drafting, even if judges would personally prefer a different outcome than what is required by a statute's text.

I don't think that the Supreme Court really takes cases with kind of a theme in mind. They get about 10,000 requests a year, and what are called 'petitions for certiorari,' which are essentially 30 page documents which say, 'Hey, Court, hear my case.' And they don't take very many of them.

For us, the Soviet constitution had no meaning. Everybody knew these were just words that had no relation to real life. In this country, the Constitution is meaningful. We have an independent judiciary. We have to protect it. We don't need to invent anything new—we just need to have the courage to protect what we have.

In the halls of justice, the only justice is in the halls - Lenny Bruce

It is not enough that we have a guilty defendant. We must have an innocent system as well.

A right to veto surpasses and prevails all rules and laws that honor the judiciary and democracy.

The judiciary is such a coin that has justice and injustice at its two sides. Accordingly, one, who wins, feels justice; whereas, one, who loses, feels injustice. Consequently, it remains just the force of a consensus; however, not proper justice.

The judiciary perpetuates a breath of state structure. If it fails to purify and justify itself; consequently, all of its systems evince a collapse; indeed, it embraces only the destruction.

The Imperial Judiciary lives. It is instructive to compare this Nietzschean vision of us unelected, life-tenured judges—leading a Volk who will be "tested by following," and whose very "belief in themselves" is mystically bound up in their "understanding" of a Court that "speak[s] before all others for their constitutional ideals"—with the somewhat more modest role envisioned for these lawyers by the Founders.

But the general/ specific canon makes all the difference if the general provision has been enacted later.

Legislative enactments proceed from men carrying their views a long time back; while judicial decisions are made off hand.