Judicial Legitimacy Quotes

Republicans say to Democrats, “Your judges are political activists.” The Democrats respond to the Republicans, “Your judges are political activists.” So the public thinks that all judges are political activists and just politicians in robes. This is very worrying.

The perception of the Supreme Court as a political court in most constitutional cases and many nonconstitutional ones derives from the fact that the justices form confident views without any empirical basis for them.

To be true to its constitutional role, the Supreme Court should refuse to be drawn into making public policy, and it should strike down legislation only when a clear constitutional violation exists. When judicial activists resort to various inventions and theories to impose their personal views on privacy and liberty, they jeopardize the legitimacy of the judiciary as an institution and undermine the role of the other branches of government.

When the President of the United States attacks a movie star it is undignified and it casts a poor light on the United States of America. When the President of the United States attacks a sitting judge and questions his legitimacy, that actually can lead to a Constitutional crisis.

I think people just find it remarkable that a high court justice would step out from behind the bench and have a persona that's not the traditional, stodgy, fuddy-duddy persona, but actually comes across as authentic and engaging.

Judges wear legal professionalism and precedent as a mantel that secures legitimacy for their decisions. It's how they distinguish themselves from politicians or administrative agencies, while wielding power that is sometimes much greater than those democratically accountable actors.

The court can, and must, only maintain its legitimacy through the dispensation of justice, not by coercion and censorship.

I tend to agree with those who say that a justice's duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks is clearly in conflict with it.

In 'Bush v. Gore,' five justices had a partisan outcome in mind and then made up the judicial principle to justify it, while claiming that the decision would not be precedent for any future cases.

The Court is most vulnerable and comes nearest to illegitimacy when it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little or no cognizable roots in the language or design of the Constitution.

It may seem ironic that the judicial branch preserves its legitimacy through refraining from action on political questions. That concept was put forward best by Justice [Felix] Frankfurter, appointed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The transformation of the D.C. Circuit has been replicated in federal courts around the country. Obama has had two hundred and eighty judges confirmed, which represents about a third of the federal judiciary.

Whatever final judgment awaits 'Bush v. Gore' in the annals of history, I am certain that the good work and good faith of the U.S. federal judiciary as a whole will continue to sustain public confidence at a level never beyond repair.

The Supreme Court has made itself into a political institution … It has become a political prize and a political position.

I find it hard to believe that Senators or the American public will classify Sotomayor as unqualified, particularly given the thin credentials of many of our eighteenth and nineteenth century Supreme Court Justices.

The most fundamental question of all the legitimacy of judicial review itself.

The Court's legitimacy arises from the source of its authority - which is, of course, the Constitution - and is best preserved by adhering to decision methods that neither expand nor contract but legitimize the power of judicial review.

If the country comes to believe that judges are politicians in robes no end of difficulty will come from that.

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.

Merely implying bias due to a judge's ethnic heritage is wrong as a matter of principle and legally illegitimate.