Thomas Jefferson Quotes

But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence.

If the question [before justices of the peace] relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact.

If the courts are making the decisions, it matters who the judge is and, of course, people are concerned with what is the bottom line.

And the problem is once you get into this campaign business and begin to have a lot of money, then the person on the bench begins to think - what's going to happen if I decide the case this way or that way?

Judges pretty much act independently once they get on the bench so I'm not really sure why Harper's concerned that the court is currently being stacked with a lot of Liberal appointments.

The trial by jury might safely be introduced into a despotic government, if the jury were to exercise no right of judging of the law, or the justice of the law.

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.

Unfortunately, what many people forget is that judges are just lawyers in robes.

The right of the judge to inflict punishment gives him both power and opportunity to oppress the innocent; yet none but crazy men will from thence determine that it is best to have neither a legislature nor judges.

I think when judges are in the position of authority, they really get bent out of shape when someone tells them they acted inappropriately.

All judges have cases that touch our passions deeply, but we all struggle constantly with remaining impartial.

The British judiciary is one of the most corrupt in the world because of politically active judges

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

That judges of important causes should hold office for life is not a good thing, for the mind grows old as well as the body.

It's important not to get into the business of characterizing judges based on one decision they make

If a judge does his job right, you [the observer] will never know how he personally feels about the policies he may have to rule on.

As, for the safety of society, we commit honest maniacs to Bedlam, so judges should be withdrawn from the bench, whose erroneous biases are leading us to dissolution.

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.

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.

Judges are objects of aversion and distrust.

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

I have written this treatise because there are judges who decide cases according to their own will rather than by the authority of the laws

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

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.