Herb Kohl Quotes

What five members of the Supreme Court say the law is may be something vastly different from what Congress intended the law to be.

Measured motions seem to me right, in the main, for constitutional as well as common law adjudication. Doctrinal limbs, too swiftly shaped, experience teaches, may prove unstable.

The Supreme Court is never very far from public opinion.

The president typically never does comment on anything involving the Supreme Court cases, Supreme Court ruling, or Supreme Court finding, typically.

The Supreme Court is our ultimate check and balance.

Conservative Supreme Court Justices have overturned many more decisions arrived at by legislative majorities then have liberal justices.

People expect that the law will be what the Supreme Court told them what the law was going to be.

If confirmed by the Senate to serve on the Supreme Court, I will keep an open mind in every case and always strive to preserve the Constitution of the United States and the American rule of law.

What many people, I think, don't really understand is how much their rights really turn on the interpretation of the Supreme Court.

Many studies or theories by political scientists fit some subset of cases that a court decides, but literally no theory can account for all of them, particularly when it comes to studying a complex institution like the Supreme Court.

Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.

I also believe that the Supreme Court should be the final arbiter of all federal questions.

If I am confirmed, I will commit to show Heller and the principles articulated in it the full measure of respect that is due to all constitution decisions of the court.

Judge Roberts has assured me personally that he has a healthy respect for precedent and the hard-won rights of Americans.

Judicial review has been a part of our democracy in this constitutional government for over 200 years.

Presidents come and go, but the Supreme Court goes on forever.

Just because a majority of the Supreme Court declares something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so.

We know that this man has a proven record of being a 'strict constructionist.' Our President has given us his word that he will interpret the Constitution rather than make new laws from the bench.

My feeling is that the judge has a responsibility to the Constitution first, precedent second. Precedent is one factor. It is not the only factor. If it was the only factor, then, you know, we wouldn't have had Roe vs. Wade. We wouldn't have had Griswold. We wouldn't have had Lawrence. We wouldn't have had all these cases which the Left love.

The president appoints the judges. Your lives and your children's lives can change by all of these appellate court judges who will be appointed who will reinterpret laws, and things can change.

The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being.

The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.

In the last four years the sound rule of giving statutes the benefit of all reasonable doubt has been cast aside. The Court has been acting not as a judicial body, but as a policy-making body…. Judges who will bring to the Courts a present-day sense of the Constitution - Judges who will retain in the Courts the judicial functions of a court, and reject the legislative powers which the courts have today assumed.

(Referring to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:) A fine, honest gentleman with whom I agree with on almost nothing.

Supreme court opinions should be written in such a way that they can be read in the barber shop.