Mike DeWine Quotes

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

Whether it is in the United States or in mainland Europe, written constitutions have one great weakness. That is that they contain the potential to have judges take decisions which should properly be made by democratically elected politicians.

The Supreme Court is not elected, and it is therefore not a proper arbiter of social policy.

When a judge assumes the power to decide which distinctions made in a statute are legitimate and which are not, he assumes the power to disapprove of any and all legislation, because all legislation makes distinctions.

The Supreme Court and courts in general have been usurping the role of the legislative branch of government.

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

Statutes and constitutions do not protect judicial independence -- people do.

The Supreme Court is our ultimate check and balance.

The Supreme Court has acted as the final barricade against the assaults of democratic majorities.

The right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.

When a judge decides a constitutional question, when he decides what the people as a whole can or cannot do, the people should have a right to recall that decision if they think it is wrong. If the courts have the first say so as to all legislative acts, and if no appeal can lie from them to the people, then they are the irresponsible masters of the people.

Judicial activism must be lessened, and the judiciary should do its work and let politicians work.

It is essential to democracy that the elected representatives of the people make the laws that govern this country - and not the judges.

Courts do not make the law.

Democracy demands that judges confine themselves to a narrow sphere of influence - that is why the late Alexander Bickel called the judiciary the 'Least Dangerous Branch.' In a world governed by a proper conception of their role, judges don't play at being legislators - they leave that job to our elected representatives.

The overreach of the judiciary can be attributed to, one, the inability of the executive to deliver; and two, the tendency to issue judicial pronouncements for national good. The second element is dangerous because that's the function of the government.

Anyone who has followed my work knows that I'm an advocate of reducing the power of the High Court of Justice, according to the principle of separation of powers.

There should be many judges, for few will always do the will of few.

The court's recent decisions have made life more difficult for the democratic institutions that perform the day- to-day work of our nation.

When we surrender moral government to the courts, we have surrendered the very essence of freedom; we have surrendered its only real meaning, and we will not be free again until we get it back.

Activist Supreme Courts are not new. The Dred Scott decision in 1856, imposing slavery in free territories; the Plessy decision in 1896, imposing segregation on a private railroad company; the Korematsu decision in 1944, upholding Franklin Roosevelt’s internment of American citizens, mostly Japanese Americans; and the Roe decision in 1973, imposing abortion on the entire nation; are examples of the consequences of activist Courts and justices.

[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their, own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.

This country is always changing. But my point about the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court didn't wait for the country to change. Five unelected lawyers overruled 320 million Americans.

When a judge goes beyond [his proper function] and reads entirely new values into the Constitution, values the framers and ratifiers did not put there, he deprives the people of their liberty. That liberty, which the Constitution clearly envisions, is the liberty of the people to set their own social agenda through the process of democracy.

The Declaration of Independence...is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution's refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges' list against laws duly enacted by the people.