Court Intervention Quotes

The court's authority must be clear, and it must not blatantly intervene in the decisions of the legislative and executive branches.

When you file an amicus brief, and you represent a state, the court reads your brief. It is a powerful position to make the legal assault from.

The government would be able to go to court with respect to newspaper articles, broadcast pieces and the like that they thought were bad or harmful or even against the government and try to block them.

We need an attorney general that's going to be an advocate for the state of Missouri and is willing to intervene in the regulatory process and go to court to protect Missourians from over-regulation.

The Supreme Court and courts in general have been usurping the role of the legislative branch of government.

I don't think I can change the fact that the court can cancel a law, but I think the court should only get involved in extreme issues like human rights violations.

We live in a period in which political disagreements are routinely handed over to the courts. Whenever you think that the president is wrong, you might well cry out that he has violated the Constitution - and ask federal judges to rule accordingly.

When a nationwide injunction constrains a significant executive policy, the Justice Department has little choice but to seek emergency relief.

It is monstrous that courts should aid or abet the law-breaking police officer.

As proof of this statement, consider this question: Have the people ever been known to rise against the Court of Appeals, or mob a Justice of the Peace, in order to get higher wages, free credit, tools of production, favorable tariffs, or government-created jobs? Everyone knows perfectly well that such matters are not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals or a Justice of the Peace. And if government were limited to its proper functions, everyone would soon learn that these matters are not within the jurisdiction of the law itself.

I stated at Justice [John] Roberts' hearing, the court's injected itself into many of the political debates of our day.

Asking the legal system to resolve divorce is like asking a boxing coach to be our marriage counselor.

No matter how many times the court shuts them down or how many Americans speak out to defend their rights, Republican politicians who stand to gain from suppressing voters won't back down. They'll only change their tactics.

I think Trump wants to be dictator. I don't think the courts will allow him to be, and I think that after months of revolting sycophancy, neither will Congress. He will sink to such a popularity trough that even those spineless, craven gophers will cave.

But history shows that when courts intervene because a president is trying to shield his own conduct, the deck is stacked against him.

In our day, you can mock religion in public and even get funds for doing it. But you can't show respect for religion in public - or you risk being hauled into court.

Consider this: The United States held its first presidential election in 1789. It marked the first peaceful transfer of executive power between parties in the fourth presidential election in 1801, and it took another 200 years' worth of presidential elections before the courts had to settle an election.

Instead of allowing the political processes to run their course ... the Court seeks to do Congress' job for it, compensating for congressional inaction. It is not unreasonable to think that this encourages the political branches to pass their problems to the judiciary.

I think there is a role for courts in a variety of areas, but the notion that we can allow a federal judge to run our greenhouse gas policy strikes me as preposterous.

When the court that handpicked you to be president tells you you've overstepped your bounds, you've overstepped your bounds.

[George W.] Bush, with lots of help from the nation’s highest court, was allowed to run out the clock in what is not supposed to be a mere game.

The court's injected itself in the definition of marriage, deciding whether or not human life is worth protecting, permitting government to transfer private property from one person to another, even interpreting the Constitution on the basis of foreign and international laws.

Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.

That the decision is taken away from the voters, and as in 2000 turned over to the lawyers and the courts.

There is a poignant aspect to today’s opinion. Its length, and what might be called its epic tone, suggest that its authors believe they are bringing to an end a troublesome era in the history of our Nation and of our Court. “It is the dimension” of authority, they say, to “cal[l] the contending sides of national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.” . . . Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish. We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining.