Judicial Objectivity 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.

Judge Kavanaugh has an exemplary record of service to the judiciary and the rule of law.

Judges certainly have political connections and strong political views, but that doesn't mean they can't rise above politics when they hear cases. We expect them to, and the law presumes they do.

Judges ... rule on the basis of law, not public opinion, and they should be totally indifferent to pressures of the times.

It's important not to get into the business of characterizing judges based on one decision they make

Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.

I was driven years ago to the conclusion that political considerations had not hurt the character of appointments here [the supreme court].

Conservatives complain that the Supreme Court is too liberal. Liberals complain that it's too conservative. Both charges are inaccurate: in reality the Court is a careful political actor that arguably represents the center of gravity of American politics better than most politicians do.

I do not think that we should select judges based on a particular philosophy as opposed to temperament, commitment to judicial neutrality and commitment to other more constant values as to which there is general consensus.

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

We need to consider nominations as thoroughly and carefully as the American people deserve. No one is entitled to a free pass to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

I have no doubt that if confirmed, Judge Gorsuch would help to restore confidence in the rule of law. His years on the bench reveal a commitment to judicial independence - a record that should give the American people confidence that he will not compromise principle to favor the president who appointed him.

You can have many different selection systems, but the bottom line has to be a system that, once the judge takes office that judge will feel that he or she is to decide the case without reference to the popular thing or the popular will of the moment.

I have been a judge for 15 years and I've made up my own mind during all that time.

I don't think that a Justice should have uppermost in her mind, 'A Democratic president appointed me, so I must leave to be sure that another Democratic president can appoint my successor.'

All judges have cases that touch our passions deeply, but we all struggle constantly with remaining impartial.

The truth is that the D.C. Circuit is an admirably nonideological court that applies principles of administrative law evenhandedly.

Appointments to the higher judiciary must be through transparent processes, which ensure that persons of impeccable integrity and high competence are appointed to these positions.

Judges can determine fair justice far better than any inane federal mandate.

Sometimes Supreme Court justices surprise you with their decisions - you think they're going to vote one way, but they vote a different way, and I keep an open mind about that. But I think a moral compass is really important for a Supreme Court justice, as it is for any political appointee.

Judges as a class are not a speaking out group.

The obligation of any judge is to decide the case before the court, and the nature of the issue presented will largely determine the appropriate scope of the principle on which its decision should rest.

The state in commissioning its judges has commanded them to judge, but neither in constitution nor in statute has it formulated a code to define the manner of their judging.

We must use a judicial, rather than a political, standard to evaluate [a nominee's] fitness for the Supreme Court. That standard must be based on the fundamental principle that judges interpret and apply but do not make law.

If Americans loved judicial activism, liberals wouldn't be lying about what it is. Judicial activism means making up constitutional rights in order to strike down laws the justices don't like based on their personal preferences. It's not judicial activism to strike down laws because they violate the Constitution.