Paul Watford Quotes

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.

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

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

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

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

I am often asked what it was like to be a woman clerking for Justice Scalia. 'Much like being a man clerking for him' is my easy answer. Justice Scalia believed in one simple principle: That law came to the court as an 'is,' not an 'ought.'

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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'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.

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

I think when judges are in the position of authority, they really get bent out of shape when someone tells them they acted inappropriately.

You want to know what judicial activism is? Judicial activism is judges imposing their policy preferences on the words of the Constitution.

Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.

Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.

The state in commissioning its judges has commanded them to judge, but neither in constitution nor in statute has it formulated a code to define the manner of their judging.

It has not been unknown that judges persist in error to avoid giving the appearance of weakness and vacillation.

Judges as a class are not a speaking out group.

As a general rule, I do not think it appropriate for judges to heap either praise or censure upon a legislative measure that comes before them, lest it be thought that their validation, invalidation, or interpretation of it is driven by their desire to expand or constrict what they personally approve or disapprove as a matter of policy.

A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge... stretching for results he prefers rather than those the law demands.