Chuck Grassley Quotes

The Supreme Court is our ultimate check and balance.

I am still doing my due diligence. A vote on a Supreme Court nominee is a lifetime appointment and when the court decides, it is the law of the land.

Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so.

The Supreme Court needs jurists, not politicians.

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.

I believe Judge Kavanaugh will be a justice whose adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law will be a credit to the Court and all Americans.

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

Stability in law - particularly constitutional law - is critically important; the Supreme Court would do well to remember that.

The last stop to protect rights and liberties is the Supreme Court.

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. I have no fear of constitutional amendments properly adopted, but I do fear the rewriting of the Constitution by judges under the guise of interpretation.

Remember when John Roberts was seeking confirmation of the Supreme Court, and he said judges should be just like umpires, just calling balls and strikes? Well, turnabout is fair play. What baseball needs behind the plate are umpires like those judges who are called strict constructionists, which means you follow subtle law to the letter.

Republicans can nominate bad Justices, too. Earl Warren, William Brennan, Harry Blackmun, David Souter... the list goes on.

My Democratic colleagues should not forget that President Obama's Supreme Court nominees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were both given up or down votes by Republicans.

As a general rule, I do not think judges should consider current societal preferences when ruling on constitutional challenges.

Judges should always behave judicially by adjudicating, never politically by legislating. I leave policy to policymakers. They're preeminent, but they're not omnipotent. In other words, lawmakers decide if laws pass, but judges decide if laws pass muster.

The Supreme Court's most conservative Justices have presented themselves as great respecters of precedent and opponents of 'judicial activism' - of judges using the Constitution to strike down laws passed by the elected branches of government. If they are true to those principles, they should uphold rent control.

We have differing views on law, politics and religion. But I have yet to meet a Scalia clerk who was not grateful to the man who taught us, shaped us, and launched us into our lives in the law. Justice Scalia's passing leaves a giant void in the court and in the intellectual discourse over the law.

There's no such thing as judicial supremacy.

A Supreme Court justice must convince at least four colleagues to bind the federal government nationwide, whereas a district court judge issuing a nationwide injunction needn't convince anyone.

If judicial review means anything, it is that judicial restraint does not allow everything.

I have always thought that term limits for Justices sound good until you really give the issue some thought.

The Supreme Court is the last line of defense for the separation of powers and for the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.

I believe Judge Kavanaugh is a well-qualified conservative jurist, and I commend President Trump for his commitment to naming Supreme Court justices who are committed to the rule of law.

Senators should not play politics by threatening filibusters and evaluating Judge Gorsuch based on what his policy preferences are or how he might come down on a specific case that may come before the Court.

I don't think I can change the fact that the court can cancel a law, but I think the court should only get involved in extreme issues like human rights violations.