Mike Braun Quotes

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

The judges’ individual sense of justice ... might result in a benevolent despotism if the judges were benevolent men. [But] It would put an end to the reign of law

The right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.

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

An essential function of the Court is to revise incorrect or outdated prior rulings.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.

Wise men wrote the Constitution, but clever judges have been destroying it, bit by bit, turning it into an instrument of arbitrary judicial power, instead of a limitation on all government power.

I think the Supreme Court does have the authority, which is not used, to declare a blanket right for all people, all adults.

Of the judicial department of the Government, the Supreme Court is the head and representative, and to it must come for final decision all the great legal questions which may arise under the Constitution, the laws, or the treaties of the United States.

In a constitutional democracy the moral content of law must be given by the morality of the framer or legislator, never by the morality of the judge.

They had no right, as it seems to me, to prosecute me in these Halls; nor have you the right in law or under the Constitution, as I respectfully submit, to take jurisdiction over offenses committed against them.

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 is a menace to the welfare of the nation.

An act of Congress is binding upon all as much as if it were included … in the Constitution itself.

I would like to see more judicial activism because I want to see more laws struck down.

Checks and balances, in time of war, are more important than ever.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

Judges will have the expounding of those laws when they come before them; and they will no doubt stop the operation of such as shall appear repugnant to the constitution.

It is of course true that any kind of judicial legislation is objectionable on the score of the limited interests which a Court can represent, yet there are wrongs which in fact legislatures cannot be brought to take an interest in, at least not until the Courts have acted.

In the fifteen years since Earl Warren became Chief Justice, the Court has brought about more social change than most Congresses and most presidents.

Time has proved that the Supreme Court’s judgment was wrong on the most outstanding issues upon which it chose to challenge the popular branches

I have grave concerns that the CIA search may have violated the separation of powers principle embodied in the United States Constitution.

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?

Over the last few years, we have seen too many politicians disregard the Constitution as they voted to increase the size and scope of government. I will use my legal experience gained as a federal attorney to hold them accountable.

We are a nation of laws, not department-wide memos.

In our administration, we're going to follow the law, and any policy that we move forward will fall well within the law and the Arizona Constitution.