Judicial Quotes

No matter how badly senators want to know things, judicial nominees are limited in what they may discuss. That limitation is real, and it comes from the very nature of what judges do.

Our Parliamentary system has simply failed to meet the challenge of judicial activism.

The president does not have any obligation to make a consensus appointment here. What the president's obligation is, is to pick a judicial conservative, and I believe that's what he's gonna do.

It is the union of independence and dependence of these branches - legislative, executive and judicial - and of the governmental functions possessed by each of them, that constitutes the marvellous genius of this unrivalled document.

Out of control judicial activism threatens traditional marriage in America.

So the danger of conservative judicial activism has been averted for another year. Stay tuned.

If there is a nuclear tactic being used here, I submit it is the use of that obstruction where a willful minority blocks a bipartisan majority from voting on the President's judicial nominees.

It is hard to see Judge Roberts as a judicial activist who would place ideological purity or a particular agenda above or ahead the need for thoughtful legal reasoning.

Illegal immigration is crisis for our country. It is an open door for drugs, criminals, and potential terrorists to enter our country. It is straining our economy, adding costs to our judicial, healthcare, and education systems.

JAG is an acronym for the Judge Advocate General, which is the judicial system of the military.

The position the Government finds itself in is not one of constructing a law, but of carrying out a decision given by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

The people in general ought to have regard to the moral character of those whom they invest with authority either in the legislative, executive, or judicial branches.

The judicial system is the most expensive machine ever invented for finding out what happened and what to do about it.

The notion that Congress can change the meaning given a constitutional provision by the Court is subversive of the function of judicial review; and it is not the less so because the Court promises to allow it only when the Constitution is moved to the left.

Now that judges embrace forcibly starving someone to death, Congress should use its appropriation power to starve the judicial budget.

Let there be no reservation or doubt that I believe the Senate should vote on each and every judicial appointment made by the President of the United States and that no rule or procedure should ever stop the Senate from exercising its constitutional responsibility.

Historically, the judicial branch has often been the sole protector of the rights of minority groups against the will of the popular majority.

If people around the world knew how well people at Guantanamo Bay are treating prisoners, they would not fall prey to the accusations that some in our Chamber are making. They are all receiving judicial review.

Human life is held in much higher esteem, and the taking of it, whether in private quarrel or by judicial procedure, is looked upon much more seriously than it was formerly.

The Constitution is not a panacea for every blot upon the public welfare. Nor should this Court, ordained as a judicial body, be thought of as a general haven for reform movements.

We have dozens and dozens and dozens of judicial nominees up there waiting and we have a court system that's crying out for more judges.

Of course, conservatives always claim to be against judicial activism.

Judicial judgment must take deep account of the day before yesterday in order that yesterday may not paralyze today.