Robert H. Jackson Quotes

You want to know what judicial activism is? Judicial activism is judges imposing their policy preferences on the words of the Constitution.

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

The Supreme Court is never very far from public opinion.

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

It is always possible for the court to overreach its proper bounds and perhaps declare a lot of laws unconstitutional and frustrate the will of the majority in a way that it ought not be frustrated.

The (Supreme) Court has shown in the past that the Constitution can also be twisted to frustrate the needs of democracy

The American Constitution has changed, is changing, and by the law of its very existence must continue to change, in its substance and practical working even its words remain the same.

Conservative Supreme Court Justices have overturned many more decisions arrived at by legislative majorities then have liberal justices.

A decision reflects judicial restraint if it upholds practices under constitutional attack. A decision reflects judicial activism if it invalidates practices under constitutional attack.

One single object... will merit the endless gratitude of society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation

The Supreme Court overrules, distinguishes, and upholds prior precedents. Sometimes it ignores them. But it does not - cannot - 'defy' them.

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

There's no such thing as judicial supremacy.

Conservatives like to insist that their judges are strict constructionists, giving the Constitution and statutes their precise meaning and no more, while judges like Ms. Sotomayor are activists. But there is no magic right way to interpret terms like 'free speech' or 'due process' - or potato chip.

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

We have a problem with judicial activism in this country.

The court's recent decisions have made life more difficult for the democratic institutions that perform the day- to-day work of our nation.

The Court is most vulnerable and comes nearest to illegitimacy when it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little or no cognizable roots in the language or design of the Constitution.... There should be, therefore, great resistance to ... redefining the category of rights deemed to be fundamental. Otherwise, the Judiciary necessarily takes to itself further authority to govern the country without express constitutional authority.

There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.

I believe in the separation of powers. If a judge crosses the line between interpreting and making the law, he has crossed the line supporting his legitimate authority from the legislative branch's authority. Now, to me that's a very serious matter if we believe, as America's founders, did that the separation of powers - not just in theory or in textbook but in practice in the actual functioning of government - is the linchpin of limited government and liberty.

We may have lured judges into roaming at large in the constitutional field.

I also believe that the Supreme Court should be the final arbiter of all federal questions.

If I am confirmed, I will commit to show Heller and the principles articulated in it the full measure of respect that is due to all constitution decisions of the court.

FDR's justices were allies while he was alive, but after he died, they developed four totally different theories of what the Constitution is, two of which are considered conservative and two of which are considered liberal.

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