Brett Kavanaugh Quotes

But, I know enough people in that court, through the years, to know one thing: There's always somebody who surprises you, who rises above what they thought they appointed him for, and stays with the separation of powers, and with the right of the law to decide.

The court can, and must, only maintain its legitimacy through the dispensation of justice, not by coercion and censorship.

I am a pro-law judge.

Were I confirmed as a judge, I would decide cases according to the rule of law beginning to end.

But one way or another, judges perform a very vital function in our society. They have a risky job and they are entitled to security.

I tried to decide each case based on the law and the Constitution.

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.

A first principle of Anglo-American jurisprudence is that the ends do not justify the means.

The law itself is on trial in every case as well as the cause before it.

A judge sometimes must release a criminal. He doesn't like it, she doesn't like it, but the law requires it. And the context of an election in which you are "soft on crime" betrays a misunderstanding of the judicial process and a misunderstanding of the Constitution.

A judge must be independent and must interpret the law, not make the law.

I do not allow myself to be moved by anything except the law. If there has been a mistake in the law, or if I think there has beenperjury or injustice, I will weigh the petition most carefully, but I do not permit myself to be moved by more harrowing details, and I try to treat each case as if I was reviewing it or hearing it for the first time from the bench.

If Americans loved judicial activism, liberals wouldn't be lying about what it is. Judicial activism means making up constitutional rights in order to strike down laws the justices don't like based on their personal preferences. It's not judicial activism to strike down laws because they violate the Constitution.

Justice, not the majority, should rule.

I said the first concern of the administration of justice must, of course, be the individual. The second concern is the truth.

The judge is not the knight-errant, roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness.

And it is no less true, that personal security and private property rest entirely upon the wisdom, the stability, and the integrity of the courts of justice.

You have a good judicial system in the U.S., as you have learned from the Nixon-Watergate period.

Justice is the object of government, and those who support the government, must be agreed as to the justice to be executed by it, or they cannot rightfully unite in maintaining the government itself.

A justice is not like a law professor, who might say, 'This is my theory... and this is what I'm going to be faithful to and consistent with,' and in twenty years will look back and say, 'I had a consistent theory of the First Amendment as applied to a particular area.'

Any successful nominee should possess both the temperament to interpret the law and the wisdom to do so fairly. The next Supreme Court Justice should have a record of protecting individual rights and a strong willingness to put aside any political agenda.

If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: 'Thou shalt not ration justice.'

Justice is what is established; and thus all our established laws will necessarily be regarded as just without examination, since they are established.

Isn’t he who chooses the judge the master of justice?

Our criminal justice system was designed to be fair and is the fairest system known to man.