P. Sathasivam Quotes

What I've learned over the years... judges are conscientious... not like lawyers, who give opinions.

My personal opinions on any subject are really not relevant, not important, and to the extent that I might inject them, I am acting improperly as either a District Court judge or as an appellate court judge.

You can have many different selection systems, but the bottom line has to be a system that, once the judge takes office that judge will feel that he or she is to decide the case without reference to the popular thing or the popular will of the moment.

They might object to some of my opinions, but they don't object to my behavior as a judge.

Unfortunately, what many people forget is that judges are just lawyers in robes.

Judges are terrible politicians.

Practicing in the trial work trenches of the law, I saw, too, that when we judges don our robes, it doesn't make us any smarter, but it does serve as a reminder of what's expected of us: Impartiality and independence, collegiality and courage.

Judge Kavanaugh has an exemplary record of service to the judiciary and the rule of law.

We must remember that we have to make judges out of men, and that by being made judges their prejudices are not diminished and their intelligence is not increased.

What is it that makes us trust our judges? Their independence in office and manner of appointment.

I do think there is a value in the services of judges for long periods of time.

The worst thing you want is a willy-nilly judge who is swayed by the political whims of the era or the time. What you want is a judge who is thinking about what he or she is doing and is thinking about it in a principled way.

I have ventured to write more intimately about my personal life than is customary for a member of the Supreme Court, and with that candor comes a measure of vulnerability.

My concern was whether I could do the job of a justice well enough to convince the nation that my appointment was the right move.

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.

I'm a judge. It seemed to me that it was critical to try to take action to stem the criticism and help people understand that in the constitutional framework, it's terribly important not to have a system of retaliation against decisions people don't like.

I don't know how a judge can concentrate on being fair and impartial when he or she is faced with possible jail time for making a decision that others deem incorrect.

At least there's a political input, but when you put on the robe, at that point the politics is over.

The obligation of any judge is to decide the case before the court, and the nature of the issue presented will largely determine the appropriate scope of the principle on which its decision should rest.

All judges have cases that touch our passions deeply, but we all struggle constantly with remaining impartial.

…if I should once permit such political considerations to interfere with the administration of justice in this office, where could I stop? If I should once begin to allow my official conduct to be swayed by considerations such as those, I feel it would end by eventually leading me wholly astray.

That's what you want in a judge—someone who can take the heat after following his or her own conscience.

It's important not to get into the business of characterizing judges based on one decision they make

[Discussing the confirmation process:] A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.

If a judge does his job right, you [the observer] will never know how he personally feels about the policies he may have to rule on.