Wendy E. Long Quotes

I don't think there should be a litmus test on judges, no matter who the president is.

What is it that makes us trust our judges? Their independence in office and manner of appointment.

You have had indeed a fair trial. It is a shocking thing when a judge of your high office is shown to have betrayed the truth and his honor, and I sentence you to the penitentiary.

My concern was whether I could do the job of a justice well enough to convince the nation that my appointment was the right move.

I think my independence was a big help to getting Judges Roberts and Alito confirmed, and I think that's recognized.

There are a lot of wonderful people in America who shouldn't be on the Supreme Court - and a lot who should be on the court who aren't such wonderful people.

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.

I was driven years ago to the conclusion that political considerations had not hurt the character of appointments here [the supreme court].

Of all officers of government, those in whose appointment any participation of popular suffrage is the most objectionable are judicial officers.

Filling a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court is a solemn process for our nation, and I hope Senate consideration of Judge Barrett will not descend into the dishonorable spectacle that Americans witnessed during the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Seats on the [Court] bench are not reserved for causes or interests. They're given to those who will uphold the rule of law so long as the nominee is well-qualified to interpret and apply the law.

I want to remind all Americans that the Senate has a very important responsibility to confirm only well- qualified individuals who will faithfully interpret the law and the Constitution.

I believe strongly that we should have nominees to the United States Supreme Court based on their qualifications rather than any litmus test.

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.

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

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 should trust judges to be independent, investigators to be independent.

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.

I had the longest judicial vacancy in the history of the United States - on the Eastern District of North Carolina. Not many people know that.

Having been on the front lines of the confirmation battles involving Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, I know firsthand what is at stake when the Senate exercises its 'advise and consent' power over federal judges.

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.

But I wound like people to think I was an honest judge and a good judge. And I always tried the reach the best result in every case.

When President Donald Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve on the Supreme Court, I said that he deserved a fair hearing and a vote. I said this even though Senate Republicans filibustered dozens of President Obama's judicial nominees and then stopped President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick Garland.

The main opposition to Judge Gorsuch's confirmation comes from a handful of Democratic Senators who are using the playbook of far-left special interest groups, the same groups that routinely attack anyone who doesn't actively promote their agenda.

Our judiciary has a reputation for intellectual rigour, careful consideration of the arguments, and a serious-minded determination to each decision based on what is right and not necessarily what is superficially popular. I am not sure that all politicians have the same reputation.