Judicial Criticism Quotes

There has been a sea change in the way Democrats view and talk about the Supreme Court. Democrats used to respectfully disagree with the justices. Now they call them illegitimate and corrupt, partisan and extreme.

One of the things that drives me batty is people who think they're court watchers, who say, "Oh, Clarence Thomas. You know, his clerks do all the work for him. You know, he doesn't deserve to be there, and has never done anything."

The Middle East is literally going up in flames, as is California, and Katrina's problems haven't been solved, and Congress' response is to criticize Federal judges.

Judge [Samuel] Alito should see criticism as a badge of honor worn by many past and present members of the Court.

There's no question that Donald Trump has said things that are very unsettling. I mean, whether it's comparing Mexicans to rapists, demonizing Muslim Americans, excoriating the federal judge who was handling the case.

I don't suggest we ought to be able to pressure judges, but we ought to be able to criticize [them] when we think they've made a mistake

I would never criticize a federal judge, particularly if I had a court case in front of him, but you would certainly never, ever criticize them based on their ethnic background.

The judiciary is not supposed to be the dominant branch of the federal government. It is supposed to be one of three equal branches. For now, Republicans have the upper hand because Democrats don’t have the votes in Congress to change the law. But the harsh recent [Democrat] criticism is intended to be an early step in a long campaign to constrain the court.

I am a proud Article III judge. We've been criticized from the beginning of this great country. What I will say about me and my colleagues is it doesn't matter to us.

[O]ften art has judged the judges, pleaded revenge to the innocent and shown to the future what the past suffered, so that it has never been forgotten. . . .

No doubt, there are those who believe that judges - and particularly dissenting judges - write to hear themselves say, as it were, 'I, I, I.' And no doubt, there are also those who believe that judges are, like Joan Didion, primarily engaged in the writing of fiction. I cannot agree with either of those propositions.

We do need maybe younger or more experienced judges but where you can get them I don't know. It's like in football, who would want to be a football referee? You'd just get criticism all the time.

It's the rising tide of enmity in the country, Donald Trump attacking judges, Donald Trump attacking John McCain, Senator [Richard] Blumenthal, the town halls, the riots in Berkeley. You have got the incivility on the floor of the United States Senate. You have got just a rising tide, every single story.

Sotomayor's vainglorious lecture bromide about herself as 'a wise Latina' trumping white men is a vulgar embarrassment - a vestige of the bad old days of male-bashing feminism.

The Netherlands have become a sick country, I have a message for the judges who convicted me: You have restricted the freedom of speech of millions of Dutch and hence convicted everyone. No one trusts you anymore.

I would never criticize a judge just because he or she presides in another state, including Alabama.

I'm not the first to have raised these democratic concerns. Many have faulted the court for its lack of clarity in certain cases and many have criticized its recent lack of deference to decisions made by state legislatures and Congress.

If you want criticisms, read the dissenting opinions of the Court. That will give you criticisms.

My advice would be to whoever is going after judges by name, whether it's the president or anybody else, I think it's a terrible idea. I don't think it's a very smart thing to do a Muslim ban.

I probably would have voted against Justice Thomas, and, and, and I've been disappointed by what Justice Roberts has done.

There are moments in history where Americans and their leaders must look at circumstances like this one and say, “Enough.” … A judge’s rulings stand because elected leaders and citizens have agreed that abiding by them is right and necessary to uphold the rule of law. That’s part of the social contract in America. But the judiciary must uphold its end of the social contract too. It must follow the rule of law and earn the confidence of the American people continually, every day, every month, every year. The awful reality is, from the moment this case landed in front of Judge Kacsmaryk, it’s been a rigged game all along. It’s illegitimate. The case is an affront to the Constitution and to the rule of law in the United States of America. So here’s what must happen if and when Judge Kacsmaryk issues his nationwide injunction halting access to mifepristone. President Biden and the FDA must ignore it.

I am discussing the general tendency of the public to respect and to follow judicial decisions, a habit developed over the course of American history. Were it not the case, courts that the public tended to ignore would not see their interpretations of law applied generally, as they are in our system. Parties who disagree with a particular decision, focusing upon its particular stakes, might be unperturbed by such a situation. But what, then, would have happened to all those Americans who espoused unpopular political beliefs, to those who practiced or advocated minority religions, to those who argued for an end to legal segregation in the South? What would have happened to criminal defendants unable to afford a lawyer, to those whose houses government officials wished to search without probable cause, to those whose property government wished to seize with little or no compensation? . . . The rule of law is not a meal that can be ordered à la carte. Let my examples warn against taking public acceptance of the Court’s authority for granted.

[Earl] Warren has become a hero to the Daily Worker [a communist newspaper]... I don't say that he is a Communist, but there is something radically wrong with him.... It is extremely unfortunate that he was ever confirmed as Chief Justice.

The “gaffe” gives Scalia’s critics ample occasion to deride the error, and I won’t fault then for having fun doing so, as I won’t dispute that I and others would likely be doing the same for a blunder for a liberal justice.

I don't endorse people that bash judges based on his ethnic heritage.