Ayelet Shaked Quotes

The Supreme Court is the living voice of the Constitution—that is, of the will of the people expressed in the fundamental law they have enacted. It is ... the conscience of the people.... It is the guarantee of the minority who, when threatened by the impatient vehemence of the majority, can appeal to this permanent law, finding the interpreter and enforcer thereof in a Court set high above the assaults of faction.

The Supreme Court has acted as the final barricade against the assaults of democratic majorities.

The court makes an amazing amount of decisions that ought to be made by the people.

The very purpose of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution is to protect minority rights against majority voters. Every court decision that strikes down discriminatory legislation, including past Supreme Court decisions, affirming the fundamental rights to marry the person you love, overrules a majority decision.

Popularity makes no law invulnerable to invalidation. Americans accept judicial supervision of their democracy - judicial review of popular but possibly unconstitutional statutes - because they know that if the Constitution is truly to constitute the nation, it must trump some majority preferences.

The Supreme Court is a menace to the welfare of the nation.

Maintaining a liberal activist judiciary is the only means of keeping policymakers out of control of the American people.

The primary job of the Supreme Court justice is not to uphold the will of the majority of the moment. The primary job of the Supreme Court is not to reflect the popular opinions of the day.... The Constitution is a decidedly anti-majoritarian document in wonderful and important ways that intentionally protect our rights and our liberties. And the role of the Supreme Court—in protecting those rights and liberties—is sometimes precisely to frustrate the will of a majority.

Justice, not the majority, should rule.

I think the Supreme Court does have the authority, which is not used, to declare a blanket right for all people, all adults.

That's what the Senate is about. It's the last bastion of minority rights, where a minority can be heard, where a minority can stand on its feet, one individual if necessary, and speak until he falls into the dust.

Our constitution got built around the idea of minority protection.

It is a measure of the framers' fear that a passing majority might find it expedient to compromise 4th Amendment values that these values were embodied in the Constitution itself.

I think, at times of stress, you have to trust the pillars of democracy.

The Supreme Court, of course, has the responsibility of ensuring that our government never oversteps its proper bounds or violates the rights of individuals. But the Court must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people.

Judicial review has been a part of our democracy in this constitutional government for over 200 years.

You may not be aware of a recent survey that showed that if the First Amendment were put to a popular vote today, it would fail by a 60% to 40% vote.

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

Courts are an aristocratic institution in a democracy. That's the dilemma for an institution that has the function of reviewing the will of the people. We're bound to be "anti-majoritarian.

The Constitution was framed fundamentally as a bulwark against governmental power.

If the constitution does not give the court means equal to the political emergency of such cases, it is hardly worth spending any breath upon.

There is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.

The Supreme Court is our ultimate check and balance.

The Constitution was essentially an economic document based upon the concept that the fundamental rights of private property are anterior to government and morally beyond the reach of popular majorities.

The Constitution is ... power. That is why we see political struggle over the selection of judges who will wield that power.