There is hardly a political question in the United States which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one.
In Liberia, our salary scales are so low that our judicial system has become corrupt over the years. Now, we need to do some things ourselves.
Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security.
The judicial system is the most expensive machine ever invented for finding out what happened and what to do about it.
We must apply a judicial, not a political, standard to this record. Asking a judicial nominee whose side you will be on in future cases is a political standard.
Scorecards are common in the political process, but they are inappropriate in the judicial process. The most important tools in the judicial confirmation process are not litmus paper and a calculator.
Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman. ' Wouldn't they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism.
There is a difference between constitutional government and judicial dictatorship. And I think it's time we remembered that our Constitution was not put together in order to establish the sovereignty of the judges, it was framed in order to guarantee the sovereignty of the people.
Empathy is a virtue, but it should not be a guiding judicial principle.
The purity of the critical ermine, like that of the judicial, is often soiled by contact with politics.
Our Parliamentary system has simply failed to meet the challenge of judicial activism.
The judicial branch has, in its finest hours, stood firmly on the side of individuals against those who would trample their rights.
It is of course true that any kind of judicial legislation is objectionable on the score of the limited interests which a Court can represent, yet there are wrongs which in fact legislatures cannot be brought to take an interest in, at least not until the Courts have acted.
Judicial excellence requires candor before confirmation. We are being asked to give the nominee enormous power.
Yet far from putting any meaningful constraints on law enforcement in this war, the U. S. Supreme Court has given the police license to stop and search just about anyone, in any public place, without a shred of evidence of criminal activity, and it has also closed the courthouse doors to claims of racial bias at every stage of the judicial process from stops and searches to plea bargaining and sentencing.
No judicial nomination should answer any question that is designed to reveal how the nominee will rule on any issue that could come before the court.
In the fight against terrorism, national agencies keep full control over their police forces, security and intelligence agencies and judicial authorities.
[Louis] Brandeis is often painted as an acolyte of judicial restraint, or the view that judges should uphold laws whether or not they like them.
Invalidating laws has absolutely nothing to do with judicial activism. It depends on whether the law is unconstitutional or not. That's really the key point.
There was an ancient Roman lawyer, of great fame in the history of Roman jurisprudence, whom they called Cui Bono, from his having first introduced into judicial proceedings the argument, "What end or object could the party have had in the act with which he is accused.
