Constitutional Precedent Quotes

I deny that the power of amendment [of the Constitution] carries the power of revolution.

The words of the Constitution ... are so unrestricted by their intrinsic meaning or by their history or by tradition or by prior decisions that they leave the individual Justice free, if indeed they do not compel him, to gather meaning not from reading the Constitution but from reading life.

Denying the president a constitutional voice is the real threat to our system of separated powers.

Democrats can hardly stand on principle regarding election year nominations when they were more than willing to engage in a partisan, election-year impeachment fiasco based on a contrived pretext that had no chance of prevailing.

Until I got to the nomination of Judge Gorsuch and so much preparation time, I really wasn't familiar with the blue-slip process. But it's time-honored.

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.

I think the Democrats are catering to them, but, you know, in the entire history of the United States of America, there has never been a judge who has been refused a vote when there was a majority of Senators willing to vote for his confirmation, never in history.

It is arrogant to pretend that ... we can gauge accurately the intent of the Framers [of the Constitution] on application of principle to specific, contemporary questions.

There are two ways of looking at the talking filibuster. My way is as a form of unanimous consent.

Day by day, case by case, the Supreme Court is designing a constitution for a country that I do not recognize.

Do judges follow the Constitution? Well, Yes and No. They follow the Constitution as they understand it.

Every constitutional standard is engaged in difficult but important line-drawing.

We current justices read the Constitution in the only way that we can: as 20th-century Americans.

It is my sincere opinion that the Constitution ought to be revised, and that the first Congress meeting under it, ought to prepare and recommend to the States for ratification, the most satisfactory provisions for all essential rights …

Republicans stalled Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court because they could, and 136 years of American history recommended it as politically advantageous.

Amending the U.S. Constitution, the document most sacred to those who love freedom and liberty, is a delicate endeavor and should be done only on the basis of the most clear and convincing evidence that a proposed amendment is necessary.

I think it is up to the judge to say what the Constitution provided, even if what it provided is not the best answer, even if you think it should be amended. If that's what it says, that's what it says.

it is a longstanding principle that sitting national security advisers do not testify before the Congress.