Charles E. Schumer Quotes

The judiciary must not take on the coloration of whatever may be popular at the moment. We are guardian of rights, and we have to tell people things they often do not like to hear.

I will stand up for judges who faithfully follow the law as it is written.

I have no doubt that if confirmed, Judge Gorsuch would help to restore confidence in the rule of law. His years on the bench reveal a commitment to judicial independence - a record that should give the American people confidence that he will not compromise principle to favor the president who appointed him.

There can be no activist judges from any political party.

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.

The bedrock of our democracy is the rule of law and that means we have to have an independent judiciary, judges who can make decisions independent of the political winds that are blowing.

The judiciary must be independent, impartial and autonomous to impart justice to the people and establish rule of law in the society.

If the country comes to believe that judges are politicians in robes no end of difficulty will come from that.

The fact that the judiciary makes foolish rulings doesn’t mean the government should intervene.

The court stands less than tall when it defers hearing a case for political reasons.

One single object... will merit the endless gratitude of society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation

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

Judges as a class are not a speaking out group.

Our system presumes that there are certain principles that are more important than the temper of the times. And you must have a judge who is detached, who is independent, who is fair, who is committed only to those principles, and not public pressures of other sort.

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.

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.

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.

I believe that an independent and impartial judiciary is essential to our constitutional republic.

Conservatives complain that the Supreme Court is too liberal. Liberals complain that it's too conservative. Both charges are inaccurate: in reality the Court is a careful political actor that arguably represents the center of gravity of American politics better than most politicians do.

If Americans loved judicial activism, liberals wouldn't be lying about what it is. Judicial activism means making up constitutional rights in order to strike down laws the justices don't like based on their personal preferences. It's not judicial activism to strike down laws because they violate the Constitution.

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.

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.

Judicial abuse occurs when judges substitute their own political views for the law.