Aberto Gonzales Quotes

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

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

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

Practicing in the trial work trenches of the law, I saw, too, that when we judges don our robes, it doesn't make us any smarter, but it does serve as a reminder of what's expected of us: Impartiality and independence, collegiality and courage.

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.

A judge who likes every opinion he reaches is a bad judge.

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

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

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.

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.

That's what you want in a judge—someone who can take the heat after following his or her own conscience.

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.

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

If you're going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you're not always going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, you're probably doing something wrong.

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.

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.

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.

It (lifetime appointment of judges) is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.

A judge's duty is to grant justice, but his practice is to delay it: even those judges who know their duty adhere to the general practice.

Judges shall judge justly, according to the written law and not according to their own judgment.

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.

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.

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