Joan Larsen Quotes

I do not believe there are any circumstances in which a judge should consider his or her own values or policy preferences in determining what the law means.

It's simply not bias for a judge to explain her reasoning in a dissent.

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.

A justice is not like a law professor, who might say, 'This is my theory... and this is what I'm going to be faithful to and consistent with,' and in twenty years will look back and say, 'I had a consistent theory of the First Amendment as applied to a particular area.'

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.

We don't pay judges to think; we pay judges to rule on the law.

Judges ... rule on the basis of law, not public opinion, and they should be totally indifferent to pressures of the times.

The best way to have empathy for people and the best way to have empathy for our Constitution is to appoint judges who will rule based on the law and to have empathy, if you will, for the law only and to rule based on the law.

A judge may never subvert the law or twist it in any way to match the judge's convictions.

There is a profound difference between an activist judge and an engaged judge.

We must use a judicial, rather than a political, standard to evaluate [a nominee's] fitness for the Supreme Court. That standard must be based on the fundamental principle that judges interpret and apply but do not make law.

For those whose exclusive norm of constitutional judging is merely fair reading of language applied to facts objectively viewed, 'Brown' must either be flat-out wrong or a very mystifying decision.

I think that the legitimacy of the court would be undermined in any case if the court made a decision based on its perception of public opinion.

My job is to interpret the law based on how the legislature and the court has done it and then, of course, to use our system of justice to develop some new legal tools and new concepts.

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

How long soever it hath continued, if it be against reason, it is of no force in law.

Remember, that his duty and his business is, not to make the law but to interpret and apply it

It is best that laws should be so constructed as to leave as little as possible to the decision of those who judge.

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

I don’t see why a Supreme Court justice has to have previous experience as a judge.

The judge may not … express his … personal beliefs ... as to what is right or just

I think judges have to have the ability to put aside their personal views and rule on the facts of the case with fidelity to the law and the Constitution.

Judges should be in the business of declaring what the law is using the traditional tools of interpretation, rather than pronouncing the law as they might wish it to be in light of their own political views.

The truth is that the D.C. Circuit is an admirably nonideological court that applies principles of administrative law evenhandedly.

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.