Vincent Bugliosi Quotes

Judges wear legal professionalism and precedent as a mantel that secures legitimacy for their decisions. It's how they distinguish themselves from politicians or administrative agencies, while wielding power that is sometimes much greater than those democratically accountable actors.

That the decision is taken away from the voters, and as in 2000 turned over to the lawyers and the courts.

The judge gave Michael permission to issue a statement. I think Jackson went way outside the bounds of the judge's intent. It will be interesting to see what the judge does tomorrow in court.

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.

What secret knowledge, one must wonder, is breathed into lawyers when they become Justices of this Court that enables them to discern that a practice which the text of the Constitution does not clearly proscribe, and which our people have regarded as constitutional for 200 years, is in fact unconstitutional?

I took the position from day one that it was the right decree, that the modifications I made to the decree were proper, that the correct outcome had been obtained, and that in due time all of that would become apparent. And it has become apparent.

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

It's been sanctioned by the courts, and I accept that.

Every generation gets the Constitution that it deserves. As the central preoccupations of an era make their way into the legal system, the Supreme Court eventually weighs in, and nine lawyers in robes become oracles of our national identity.

To the extent that the judicial profession becomes the daily routine of deciding cases on the most secure precedents and the narrowest grounds available, the judicial mind atrophies and its perspective shrinks.

The felonious five in their Supreme Court decision never said Gore did anything improperly in Florida.

And we made decisions on each of those matters which were ultimately upheld by the courts.

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

If the constitution does not give the court means equal to the political emergency of such cases, it is hardly worth spending any breath upon.

The jury has … the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts.

The [Supreme] Court did not interpret the Constitution—the court amended it.

We will soon know whether the Supreme Court choose the President of the United States or the people of Florida chose the President.

[George W.] Bush, with lots of help from the nation’s highest court, was allowed to run out the clock in what is not supposed to be a mere game.

Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority.

The Supreme Court does not get very reckless very often.

This Court seems incapable of admitting that some matters - any matters - are none of its business.

I think it is up to the judge to say what the Constitution provided, even if what it provided is not the best answer, even if you think it should be amended. If that's what it says, that's what it says.

I certainly would not vote against a particular judge already in office because of a decision in a case. You may not agree with a judge's decision, but the judge must act within the law.

In 'Bush v. Gore,' five justices had a partisan outcome in mind and then made up the judicial principle to justify it, while claiming that the decision would not be precedent for any future cases.