Judicial Deference Quotes

It is not my call ... it is not for the judicial branch to decide.

It has not been unknown that judges persist in error to avoid giving the appearance of weakness and vacillation.

Candidates are carefully selected by both parties to give proper weight to Jew, Protestant and Catholic, and certain posts are considered the sole possession of certain ethnic groups. The propriety of these practices is something the courts sensibly have left to the good or bad judgment of the electorate.

The president's need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts.

In very rare circumstances, the executive branch might choose to ignore a court decision.

Unfortunately, some judges evidently do not regard a debate in Parliament on new immigration rules, followed by the unanimous adoption of those rules, as evidence that Parliament actually wants to see those new rules implemented.

I don't think it's the court's perceived role to do some explaining of a political nature.

There is a lot of talk in conservative circles about judicial modesty and deferring to the political branches. That view of judging often overlooks the important role that courts have in protecting people's rights. But if there was ever a time to defer, it is when Congress is protecting voting rights in the exact way the Constitution directs it to.

The SEC and CFTC are expert agencies blessed with immensely capable professionals. Judges value and defer to that expertise - when it's exercised to make the hard decisions that Congress entrusts to an agency.

For the first half of this century, High Court judges have been cautious to the point of timidity in expressing any criticism of governmental action; the independence of the judiciary has been of a decidedly subordinate character.

Our Parliamentary system has simply failed to meet the challenge of judicial activism.

Of course, conservatives always claim to be against judicial activism.

A decision reflects judicial restraint if it upholds practices under constitutional attack. A decision reflects judicial activism if it invalidates practices under constitutional attack.

Judges tend to support the current government not because they necessarily share its views, but because they wish to avoid a worse outcome in which the Congress overrides their decisions.

Deciding not to decide is, of course, among the most important things done by the Supreme Court. It takes a lot of doing, but it can be done.

The people believed that while the courts would be independent, they would defer to the political branches on policy issues.

Don’t bother interpreting the statute for us: we know it better than you do, for we made it.

We have a problem with judicial activism in this country.

The Supreme Court has a very light backlog. They leave a lot of splits among the circuits, a lot of uncertainty. And I think they ought to work a lot harder.

… courts do not substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies, who are elected to pass laws

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.

A lower court’s job is to follow the Supreme Court, whether right or wrong..

In a world without Chevron, very little would change except perhaps the most important things.