The role of the judge is simply to decide cases.
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.
A Judge may be a farmer; but he is not to geld his own pigs.
I acknowledge these are very tough jobs a judge has in determining whether or not there is an openness that is required under the Constitution.
If a judge does his job right, you [the observer] will never know how he personally feels about the policies he may have to rule on.
Practicing in the trial work trenches of the law, I saw, too, that when we judges don our robes, it doesn't make us any smarter, but it does serve as a reminder of what's expected of us: Impartiality and independence, collegiality and courage.
I'm a judge. It seemed to me that it was critical to try to take action to stem the criticism and help people understand that in the constitutional framework, it's terribly important not to have a system of retaliation against decisions people don't like.
A lawyer has no business with the justice or injustice of the cause which he undertakes, unless his client asks his opinion, and then he is bound to give it honestly. The justice or injustice of the cause is to be decided by the judge.
It is hard to see Judge Roberts as a judicial activist who would place ideological purity or a particular agenda above or ahead the need for thoughtful legal reasoning.
When I present evidence, I expect the judge to hear and see all the evidence that gets presented.
… it [is] a judge's duty to decide, not to debate.
I am not a pro-prosecution or pro-defense judge.
A judge may never subvert the law or twist it in any way to match the judge's convictions.
The job of a judge is to figure out what the law says, not what he wants it to say. There is a difference between the role of a judge and that of a policy maker... Judging requires a certain impartiality.
The only thing the defense has to do is take care of the client and see to it that they attack every weak spot on the prosecution's case. It's up to the judge to make sure that they don't pull any fast ones.
The judge has no right to divinations of public opinion which run counter to its last formal expressions.
I've learned a lot during my years on the 3rd Circuit, particularly, I think, about the way in which a judge should go about the work of judging. I've learned by doing, by sitting on all of these cases. And I think I've also learned from the examples of some really remarkable colleagues.
The judge's duty is to inquire about the time, as well as the facts.
There is no room on the federal bench for a judge who does not treat all people as equal before the law.
Judges have to have the humility to recognize that they operate within a system of precedent, shaped by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath.
The judge may not … express his … personal beliefs ... as to what is right or just
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.
The judge weighs the arguments and puts a brave face on the matter, and since there must be a decision, decides as he can, and hopes he has done justice and given satisfaction to the community
While I sat in family court, I probably heard 20 or 25,000 cases. And I am sure, during the course of those cases, there were cases that I probably would've decided differently had I had either more time or been able to explore more. But all you can do as a judge is really give a case your best effort.
