Janet Reno Quotes

My touchstone for every question is the Constitution.

I think it makes no difference whether or not I endorse it. The Constitution is as the Supreme Court interprets it and I must conform to this and do my best to see that it is carried out in this country.

We need clarification regarding the death penalty. It's different in many states... It's a bit different throughout the country, so I look forward to Judge Gorsuch being on the court, Justice Gorsuch being on the court, and bringing some clarification to those issues.

I think most people have a general idea of the Constitution, and somewhat of the Bill of Rights.

Whatever your partisan affiliation, it is worth considering the overarching constitutional principles involved in any given Supreme Court precedent.

With respect to the death penalty, I believe that a majority of the Supreme Court will one day accept that when the state punishes with death, it denies the humanity and dignity of the victim and transgresses the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. That day will be a great day for our country, for it will be a great day for our Constitution.

I have yet to see a death case among the dozen coming to the Supreme Court on eve-of-execution stay applications in which the defendant was well represented at trial... People who are well represented at trial do not get the death penalty.

I firmly believe that the Constitution is the most powerful challenge to illiberal tendencies. If the Constitution is followed in letter and spirit and if the laws are made in the spirit in which Constitution was made, liberties can indeed be protected.

My job is to follow the law, not to make up the law that has been promulgated by the people or the people's representatives.

It's hard not to have a big year at the Supreme Court.

District of Columbia v. Heller, which recognized an individual right to possess a firearm under the Constitution, is unquestionably the most clearly incorrect decision that the Supreme Court announced during my tenure on the bench.

In 2006, I argued and won Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a Supreme Court case that struck down President George W. Bush's use of military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay.

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?

The Founding Fathers provided a way to reverse unpopular Supreme Court decisions: a constitutional amendment.

Ours is the job of interpreting the Constitution. And that document isn't some inkblot on which litigants may project their hopes and dreams.

You can't have one, two, three more picks on the Supreme Court go against our Second Amendment rights.

The experience I don't want to see repeated occurred in 'Bush v. Gore.' The Court divided five to four. There were four separate dissents, and that confused the press. In fact, some of the reporters announced that the decision was seven-two. There was no time to get together.

I don't think that the Supreme Court really takes cases with kind of a theme in mind. They get about 10,000 requests a year, and what are called 'petitions for certiorari,' which are essentially 30 page documents which say, 'Hey, Court, hear my case.' And they don't take very many of them.

Any Supreme Court confirmation needs to be a thoughtful process, with full respect for the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution.

Our Supreme Court has been very clear that the government can't just simply say something and make it so.

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.

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

We all need good laws, and an independent, impartial, and efficient judiciary to verify the constitutionality of those laws.

The House Judiciary Committee is a great place to promote our core principles of constitutionally limited government, individual freedom and the rule of law.

Impeachment is allowed under Brazil's Constitution.