Judicial Temperament Quotes

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

We need common-sense judges who understand our rights were derived from God

In 1987, I had my first opportunity to provide 'advice and consent' on a Supreme Court nominee. At that time, I stated that the qualifications essential for evaluating a nominee for the bench included 'integrity, character, legal competence and ability, experience, and philosophy and judicial temperament.' On that test, Elena Kagan fails.

Half as sober as a judge.

Not that I've always agreed with what she said - far from it - but Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has been properly lauded, in my view, as a judge who approached her duties with open-mindedness and with a sensitivity that affects her decisions would have on everyday, ordinary people.

Irritable Judges suffer from a bad case of premature adjudication.

The most important quality for a judge is open- mindedness to the arguments.

Mr. Sessions' conduct as a U.S. Attorney, from his politically-motivated voting fraud prosecutions to his indifference toward criminal violations of civil rights laws, indicated that he lacks the temperament, fairness and judgment to be a federal judge.

Good judges develop certain habits of mind. One of those habits of mind is the habit of delaying reaching conclusions until everything has been considered.

She [Justice Sandra Day O'Connor], unlike, Judge Bork, did not think that being on the court would be an "intellectual feast," to quote Judge [Robert Heron] Bork.

The fact that Judge [Samuel] Alito is such a baseball fan gives me even more confidence that he knows the proper role of a judge.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor serves as a model Supreme Court justice, widely recognized as a jurist with practical values, a sense of the consequences of the legal decisions being made by the Supreme Court.

Obama's attitude toward the rule of law is apparent in the words he used to describe what he is looking for in a nominee to replace Justice David Souter. He wants 'someone who understands justice is not just about some abstract legal theory,' he said, but someone who has 'empathy.' In other words, judges should decide cases so that the right people win, not according to the rule of law.

I had the good fortune to begin my legal career as a law clerk for a judge who really epitomized open-mindedness and fairness. He read the record in detail in every single case that came before me; he insisted on scrupulously following precedents.

I think judicial temperament is a willingness to step back from your own committed views of the correct jurisprudential approach and evaluate those views in terms of your role as a judge. It's the difference between being a judge and being a law professor.

Judge [Samuel] Alito has a reputation for being an exceptional and honest judge devoted to the rule of law, as well as being a man of integrity.

To be a judge you don't have to know about books, you have to be skilled at picking shrapnel out of your head.

The Judge should be quick of perception; firm of purpose, clear in judgment, lenient in the infliction of penalties; assiduous in the practice of mercy; expeditious in the vindication of the innocent: clement in his treatment of criminals; careful of the rights of the stranger; gentle toward his countrymen. He should be no respecter of (important) persons, and should avoid all appearance of partiality.

I think it's true that we shouldn't apply a strict litmus test and the most important thing in any judge is their capacity to provide fairness and justice to the American people.

I could have been a Judge, but I never had the Latin for the judgin'. I never had it, so I'd had it, as far as being a judge was concerned... I would much prefer to be a judge than a coal miner because of the absence of falling coal.

[Nominee for the Supreme Court] will be something designed to very much please conservatives, even as they may get a little nervous on some of what he's talking about in terms of ObamaCare and infrastructure.

Supreme Court nominations are an occasion to pause and reflect on the values that make our nation strong, just and fair. And we must determine whether a nominee has a demonstrated commitment to those basic values.

The indispensible judicial requisite is intellectual humility.

It's always an uphill battle to defeat a Supreme Court nominee, but this is a fight worth having.

Long and unchallenged control in everything in the Commonwealth has given many of these gentlemen the perfectly natural feeling that whosoever is not approved by them is ipso facto a person who is either 'dangerous' or lacking in 'judicial temperament' .... They simply cannot realize, and do not, that a long New England ancestry is not prima facie a trusteeship for everything in New England. That is in my judgment the real spring of most of the opposition.