David Boies Quotes

Cagey trial lawyers have figured out there's a pretty good likelihood their case - no matter what its merit - will literally get its day in court because of favorable judges.

If the courts are making the decisions, it matters who the judge is and, of course, people are concerned with what is the bottom line.

Much of the uncertainty of law is not an unfortunate accident: it is of immense social value.

Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt.

It would depend on whether a judge of the Supreme Court came down heads or tails.

There's no certainty in the law.

It is very important to know the law, but it is more important to know the judge

There are judges who stretch the law...to suit reactionary attitudes.

I have written this treatise because there are judges who decide cases according to their own will rather than by the authority of the laws

It is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact.

Knowing the law is not much help for an advocate. In fact, it's a bit of a disadvantage, cramps your style.

It's never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions - whether they derive from faith or anywhere else - on the law.

I think justices of all stripes agree that stare decisis is important, but not an inextricable command. It's not inflexible; it's not absolute.

I have litigated in my private life, and I will say there are many reasons why a judge could be recused from a case that have nothing to do with their prior decisions or rulings on facts which may be relevant.

Cabinet resolutions approving mass releases of terrorists deal a mortal blow to the status of Israel's judges and courts.

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

The average juror is not Mr. Spock. If he were, then a trial-court judge's job would be much easier. He could instruct the jury in broad strokes - instructing only as to the bare elements of the crime, perhaps - and be confident that the jury would deduce all of the finer-grained implications that must logically follow.

Judges certainly have political connections and strong political views, but that doesn't mean they can't rise above politics when they hear cases. We expect them to, and the law presumes they do.

Many studies or theories by political scientists fit some subset of cases that a court decides, but literally no theory can account for all of them, particularly when it comes to studying a complex institution like the Supreme Court.

Judges are either partial to the Constitution or they aren't; they either believe that the document is perfect in its form and that rights like free speech don't ebb in and out of style - or they believe that it's an anachronistic document in a world that needs a malleable, living Constitution.

In a system of precedent, the new majority bears the weight of explaining why the constitutional vision of their predecessors was flawed and of making the case as to why theirs better captures the meaning of our fundamental law.

My personal opinions on any subject are really not relevant, not important, and to the extent that I might inject them, I am acting improperly as either a District Court judge or as an appellate court judge.

I do not believe there are any circumstances in which a judge should consider his or her own values or policy preferences in determining what the law means.

In my own opinions as a judge, I have never yet had occasion to find a statute ambiguous.

Good lawyering is usually cerebral and impersonally. You can convince a judge with a mastery of facts, detail, and precedent - not a story from the gut about how you feel a certain way.