Court Rulings Quotes

For almost twenty years, abortion policy in America has been controlled by the courts.

The role of the judge is simply to decide cases.

All of us know that if an individual, a community, or a state is going continuously and successfully to defy the rulings of the courts, then anarchy results.

The president typically never does comment on anything involving the Supreme Court cases, Supreme Court ruling, or Supreme Court finding, typically.

People expect that the law will be what the Supreme Court told them what the law was going to be.

The administration cannot very well let its social program down because of adverse Supreme Court decisions .

What five members of the Supreme Court say the law is may be something vastly different from what Congress intended the law to be.

That very document [Constitution] does little to serve people when Supreme Court decisions are written so that even high-priced lawyers can't figure them out.

My feeling is that the judge has a responsibility to the Constitution first, precedent second. Precedent is one factor. It is not the only factor. If it was the only factor, then, you know, we wouldn't have had Roe vs. Wade. We wouldn't have had Griswold. We wouldn't have had Lawrence. We wouldn't have had all these cases which the Left love.

You just never know what the Supreme Court is going to do.

The idea that the brain is not fully formed until you are almost 30 years old has already been introduced, and the Supreme Court already has based two rulings on it.

Senator, my answer is that the independence and integrity of the Supreme Court requires that nominees before this committee for a position on that court not forecast, give predictions, give hints, about how they might rule in cases that might come before the Supreme Court,.

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

Judges have no actual power of enforcement. They don't have troops to carry out orders. They have no power of the purse. Yet our system of laws depends on lowly citizens and presidents abiding by court rulings.

If diversity is what is a central value in every selective university in the United States, then it ought to be seen as a compelling interest by the Supreme Court.

Law is the prophecy of what a court will do.

Most of us see Justice O'Connor as something of an icon, although we do not agree with all of her decisions.

Activist court rulings, a broken infrastructure, and widening loopholes, have thrown our immigration system into an unmistakable chaos.

When our atheistically dominated Supreme Court removed the Ten Commandments from our halls, not a whimper was heard from the 95 million Christians in this country, who still don't realize that their religious freedoms are being systematically removed without a fight.

You watch the Supreme Court in action on these cases, and they are a conflicted court. However, when it comes to speech issues generally, the court has been protective.

The Supreme Court, when it decides a new legal question, does not make illegal what was previously legal; it gives a final authoritative determination of whether an action was legal when it took place.

The value of a decision as a precedent is very much enhanced by the care with which it has been considered, and if the opinion itself shows that other decisions of the same court, or of other courts upon the same point, have been reviewed and examined, it adds to the value of the decision made on each consideration.

I'm the only P.M. of which that can be said - 'His legislation was never declared invalid in the High Court.'

My Democratic colleagues, many of whom hold law degrees, should know better than to intentionally oversimplify court rulings to mislead the public and score political points.

Pulling a crystalline, cogent rule out of the murk of the court's First Amendment, public forum, and Establishment Clause doctrine is an act of creation too complicated for mere mortals.