Homer S. Cummings Quotes

You watch the Supreme Court in action on these cases, and they are a conflicted court. However, when it comes to speech issues generally, the court has been protective.

Got good news and bad news for you, Mr. President. The good news is that Chief Justice John Roberts just saved your legacy and, perhaps, your presidency by writing for the Supreme Court majority to rule health care reform constitutional.

The reversal of a Supreme Court opinion is possible.

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.

I'm the only P.M. of which that can be said - 'His legislation was never declared invalid in the High Court.'

If the law were so simple we would not have so many 5-4 decisions of the Supreme Court

The majority opinions [of the Supreme Court] determined the cases but these dissenting opinions will determine the minds of the future.

The Supreme Court, when it decides a new legal question, does not make illegal what was previously legal; it gives a final authoritative determination of whether an action was legal when it took place.

The positions taken by the Solicitor General for years have carried a special weight with the Supreme Court because they are regarded as representing not merely the political interests of the Administration but the broad interests of the nation.

Stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right. ... But in cases involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible, this Court has often overruled its earlier decisions. ... This is strikingly true of cases under the due process clause.

People expect that the law will be what the Supreme Court told them what the law was going to be.

I never want to be in the business of predicting what the U.S. Supreme Court will do.

My gut tells me that the Supreme Court will rule the subsidies to be illegal, and therefore, Obamacare will fail.

When a nationwide injunction constrains a significant executive policy, the Justice Department has little choice but to seek emergency relief.

An essential function of the Court is to revise incorrect or outdated prior rulings. Over the last century, the Court has overruled itself about twice a year—roughly the same rate at which the Court has overturned acts of Congress.

Supreme Court precedents strictly bind lower courts, but they do not bind the Supreme Court itself. Indeed, an essential function of the Court is to revise incorrect or outdated prior rulings. Over the last century, the Court has overruled itself about twice a year—roughly the same rate at which the Court has overturned acts of Congress.

Through its interpretation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court hugely shapes the fabric of our society for us and for future generations.

Because it's important. Laws can be reversed, Supreme Court decisions can be overturned, gender classifications can continue.

Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.

I'm really proud of this Supreme Court and the way they've been dealing with the issue of First Amendment political speech.

Judges decide upon copyright law. They decide upon trademark law. They decide upon scientific issues. They decide upon very complex technical issues on a daily basis. So you must have confidence in the Supreme Court, that they will apply their mind and they will come out with a decision consistent with the Constitution.

I think that Roe v. Wade will ultimately be overturned. I think it'll fall of its own weight. It does not have any constitutional underpinnings.

When a federal court issues an order against enforcement of a government policy, the ruling traditionally applies only to the plaintiff in that case.

I think justices of all stripes agree that stare decisis is important, but not an inextricable command. It's not inflexible; it's not absolute.

Many studies or theories by political scientists fit some subset of cases that a court decides, but literally no theory can account for all of them, particularly when it comes to studying a complex institution like the Supreme Court.