Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Quotes

The process has failed to prevent the President, the Senate, or both, from caring primarily about the immediate political gains of an appointment, and thus from being indifferent or even consciously opposed to considering any of the factors truly relevant to selecting competent jurists.

Do not use a litmus test in the appointment of judges. Just get good judges.

Of all officers of government, those in whose appointment any participation of popular suffrage is the most objectionable are judicial officers.

We need to consider nominations as thoroughly and carefully as the American people deserve. No one is entitled to a free pass to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

[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.

Judgeships normally are rewards for political service … politics does play a large role in federal judicial selection …. Few judges in our history are thought to have performed with great distinction.

I don't think that a Justice should have uppermost in her mind, 'A Democratic president appointed me, so I must leave to be sure that another Democratic president can appoint my successor.'

Appointments to the higher judiciary must be through transparent processes, which ensure that persons of impeccable integrity and high competence are appointed to these positions.

Nobody wants a judge to be subject to the political whim of the moment.

…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.

Can the public feel secure with a host of judges elected for a variety of conflicting reasons.

Republicans say to Democrats, “Your judges are political activists.” The Democrats respond to the Republicans, “Your judges are political activists.” So the public thinks that all judges are political activists and just politicians in robes. This is very worrying.

For roughly two hundred years, politics has influenced dramatically the nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court justices. Presidents routinely have selected nominees to the Court based on political considerations…

If the state has a problem with judicial impartiality, it is largely one the state brought upon itself by continuing the practice of popularly electing judges.

We need a Supreme Court justice who will restore fairness, balance, and independence to the highest level of the judiciary. Based on his record, I do not believe Gorsuch would be that kind of justice.

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.

Many voters think about the makeup of the Supreme Court when they are choosing a president. The justices deal not only with constitutional issues but also with social issues that were unknown to the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution more than 200 years ago.

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.

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.

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

I don't think we need political activists on the Supreme Court or any other level of court.

Whenever you put a man on the Supreme Court he ceases to be your friend.

It is a mistake to suppose that the Supreme Court is either honoured or helped by being spoken of as beyond criticism. On the contrary, the life and character of its justices should be the objects of constant watchfulness by all, and its judgments subject to the freest criticism.

There are a lot of wonderful people in America who shouldn't be on the Supreme Court - and a lot who should be on the court who aren't such wonderful people.