Irving R. Kaufman Quotes

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.

The obligation of any judge is to decide the case before the court, and the nature of the issue presented will largely determine the appropriate scope of the principle on which its decision should rest.

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.

Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority.

We don't pay judges to think; we pay judges to rule on the law.

Judges can determine fair justice far better than any inane federal mandate.

Judges have to have the humility to recognize that they operate within a system of precedent, shaped by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath.

At least there's a political input, but when you put on the robe, at that point the politics is over.

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.

Courts cannot refuse to hear a case on the merits merely because they would prefer not to.

Great judges are also great teachers.

Great cases like hard cases make bad law.

The state in commissioning its judges has commanded them to judge, but neither in constitution nor in statute has it formulated a code to define the manner of their judging.

Disctrict judges are the first to encounter novel issues, and they must resolve them without the aid of guiding precedent. Because they work alone, district judges do not have the benefit of collegial decision making or the comfort of shared consensus.

Judges as a class are not a speaking out group.

The fascination about being a judge is the same about the duty of being a judge, and that is to ask yourself, Why am I about to rule the way I am about to rule? You must always ask yourself that question.

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

Judges have their own point of view, and we have to respect them for that. Rather than feeling bad, we respect our judges and their opinions.

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

There is a profound difference between an activist judge and an engaged judge.

The worst thing you want is a willy-nilly judge who is swayed by the political whims of the era or the time. What you want is a judge who is thinking about what he or she is doing and is thinking about it in a principled way.

Judges need to restrict themselves to the proper resolution of the case before them. They need to avoid the temptation to set broad policy.

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

Most high courts in other nations do not have discretion, such as we enjoy, in selecting the cases that the high court reviews. Our court is virtually alone in the amount of discretion it has.

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.