Judges Quotes - Page 8

Grid View List View
Quote of the DayPicture QuotesTop 100 Inspirational QuotesTop 100 Love QuotesTop 100 Happiness Quotes
Marcus AureliusKobe BryantDwight D. EisenhowerBob MarleyBarack ObamaStephen HawkingPeter DruckerDalai LamaDeepak ChopraOprah Winfrey
SmileVolleyballJourneyMemorial DayYogaEasterAnniversaryQuiltsNew YearJobs

American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education.

Apparently a great many people have forgotten that the framers of our Constitution went to such great effort to create an independent judicial branch that would not be subject to retaliation by either the executive branch or the legislative branch because of some decision made by those judges.

Judges are either partial to the Constitution or they aren't; they either believe that the document is perfect in its form and that rights like free speech don't ebb in and out of style - or they believe that it's an anachronistic document in a world that needs a malleable, living Constitution.

I'm excited about the new judges on 'American Idol.' Jennifer Lopez was a real mentor to me my season and I admire her so much. And I kind of have a crush on Steven Tyler. It's going to be interesting to see is one person going to stand out among the judges or if everyone will sort of be equal.

When I saw Adele, I thought: 'I'll give it an hour before people say I was her,' just because I was fat. When you watch 'X Factor,' you can bet your bottom dollar, every single fat singer sounds like me as far as the judges are concerned. Can you imagine if they did that with every black artist?

One of the litmus tests for judicial conservatism is the idea of judicial restraint - that courts should give substantial deference to the decisions of the political process. When Congress and the president enact a law, conservatives generally say, judges should avoid 'legislating from the bench.'

Conservatives like to insist that their judges are strict constructionists, giving the Constitution and statutes their precise meaning and no more, while judges like Ms. Sotomayor are activists. But there is no magic right way to interpret terms like 'free speech' or 'due process' - or potato chip.

While awaiting deportation proceedings, my parents remained in detention near Boston, so I could visit them. They would have liked to fight deportation, but without a lawyer and an immigration system that rarely gives judges the discretion to allow families to stay together, they never had a chance.

From the smallest misdemeanor up to the biggest crime, everyone is brought before a judge. And that means there's a huge backlog in the American legal system. There are prosecutors and public defenders and judges who are trying to keep their head above water in the tide of this bureaucracy and red tape.

The foundations of modern civil-rights law are exceptionally secure. Conservative judges nibble around the edges sometimes, and people still debate the constitutionality of affirmative-action programs. But almost no one seriously argues about the basic meaning or legitimacy of core civil-rights protections.

Just as judges have enormous stake in the appointment of judicial officers in the higher judiciary, the government has an equal stake. Since both of us have stakes in the appointment of members of the higher judiciary, the consultation of both of them is absolutely necessary. The government must have a say.

If there is any message in the 'Wimpy Kid' books, it is that reading can be and should be fun. As an adult reader, when I see an obvious moral lesson to be taught, I run in the other direction... Kids can sniff out an adult agenda from an early age. I'm writing for entertainment, not to impress literary judges.

With the passing of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, who had just entered his 100th year, the world has lost one of the greatest judges and jurists of all time and also a fine human beings. He used his extraordinary juristic and intellectual gifts to help everyone he could and to address all forms of human suffering.

The thing is, most of these courts in San Bernardino know who I am and they've researched me. In fact, a couple of judges have asked me how my back's doing, when my next launch is, so they know who I am. Some of the bailiffs wave hi to me because they follow me on Facebook and see my launch. People know who I am.

I almost want to ask the judges, 'If you don't count leg kicks, if you don't count body kicks, why not?' So if you don't think they're effective in the scoring criteria, they're not effective striking, effective grappling, so how about I kick you in the body, I kick you in the leg, and you tell me how that feels?

I love the live shows when they're on and all singing great but I hate it when the judges say bad things about their singing. I feel sick because I feel it is mean because I've done the reality TV thing so I have such strong memories of what it feels like and I just imagine how bad and how nervous they must feel.

The Supreme Court's most conservative Justices have presented themselves as great respecters of precedent and opponents of 'judicial activism' - of judges using the Constitution to strike down laws passed by the elected branches of government. If they are true to those principles, they should uphold rent control.

I think the four major leagues ought to set up a joint commission - say, of retired judges - to rule on athletes who are accused of doing bad things away from the game. Then each league would retain its independence in determining what penalties their players should get for infractions committed within the sport.

The Musharraf government has declared martial law to settle scores with lawyers and judges. Hundreds of innocent Pakistanis have been rounded up. Human rights activists, including women and senior citizens, have been beaten by police. Judges have been arrested and lawyers battered in their offices and the streets.

Although environmental groups sometimes raise issues in the confirmation process, environmental protection is not central to the fear-mongering of the liberal interest groups that oppose conservative judges. But the threat to basic environmental protections from conservative jurisprudence is broad-based and severe.

Today in Saudi, women are either at the mercy of their husbands or at the mercy of judges who tend to side with the husbands. The only circumstance that a woman can ask for a divorce or a 'khali' is when her husband is in total agreement with her or if she comes from a very powerful family who decide to back her up.

One of the reasons it is considered such a privilege to sit on a Man Booker jury is because it is famously rigorous. The judging is not a gig for lightweights. Not only are all five judges expected to have read all 155 books from beginning to end, but they have to be able to talk fluently about every book at length.

When I joined the Supreme Court in 1975, both state and federal judges accepted the Court's unanimous decision in United States v. Miller as having established that the Second Amendment's protection of the right to bear arms was possessed only by members of the militia and applied only to weapons used by the militia.

Some are motivated by a desire to mould the law to expand the rights of the downtrodden, while other may be motivated by a desire to maintain the Status Quo. Some may even be motivated by a desire to protect what they perceive to be their class interest. And such motives may not always even be conscious to the judges.

Just as the common law derives from ancient precedents - judges' decisions - rather than statutes, baseball's codes are the game's distilled mores. Their unchanged purpose is to show respect for opponents and the game. In baseball, as in the remainder of life, the most important rules are unwritten. But not unenforced.

Judges decide upon copyright law. They decide upon trademark law. They decide upon scientific issues. They decide upon very complex technical issues on a daily basis. So you must have confidence in the Supreme Court, that they will apply their mind and they will come out with a decision consistent with the Constitution.

I own that it is a good deal of a mystery to me how judges, of all persons in the world, should put their faith in dicta. A brief experience on the bench was enough to reveal to me all sorts of cracks and crevices and loopholes in my own opinions when picked up a few months after delivery and reread with due contrition.

Diversity on the bench is critical. As practitioners, you need judges who 'get it!' We need judges who understand what discrimination feels like. We need judges who understand what inequality feels like. We need judges who understand the subtleties of unfair treatment and who are willing to call it out when they see it!

Democracy demands that judges confine themselves to a narrow sphere of influence - that is why the late Alexander Bickel called the judiciary the 'Least Dangerous Branch.' In a world governed by a proper conception of their role, judges don't play at being legislators - they leave that job to our elected representatives.

In law, as in every other branch of knowledge, the truths given by induction tend to form the premises for new deductions. The lawyers and the judges of successive generations do not repeat for themselves the process of verification any more than most of us repeat the demonstrations of the truths of astronomy or physics.

When you ask to go to some other country and fight their local best guy, and you know the judges are going to be his friend and the referee is going to be his coach, the head of commission guys is probably going to be his relative or something like that, and you're asked to do that for 100 Euros. Nobody wants to do that.

Judges are the people who have to protect the rights of individuals, have to protect the rights of minorities, have to protect the rights in the Constitution, have to protect the requirement that the executive and the legislature not simply exercise raw power but adhere to standards of reasonableness and constitutionality.

Instead of turning loose these bogus asylum applicants onto the American streets never to be seen again, let's put them into mobile homes. Let's process their claims. Let's ship the judges in. Have the claims processed right there. As soon as their claim is denied, put them on a passenger plane and fly them right back home.

In court, judges tell people that their conviction carries a sentence of years, or probation. The truth is far more terrible. People convicted of crimes often become social outcasts for life, finding it difficult or impossible to rent an apartment, get a job, adopt children, access public benefits, serve on juries, or vote.

Whether it's military resources or whatever it is doesn't matter. We need more detention facilities, more immigration judges, we need the ability to adjudicate these claims right on the spot without releasing people. If they don't have a credible claim of persecution and the vast majority do not, they get deported immediately.

I went downtown to the courthouse pretty late at night, and arraignment court was on. You have these prosecutors and public defenders and judges and all of these people who are there on a Friday night at half past 12, and how can you expect people to bring their judgment and their best selves to their work at that kind of time?

The key issue is not who is in charge but what. Russia's problem is constitutional. There is no division of powers. The judges, the police, and the legislature all work for the same people, and there is essentially no trial by jury. As a result, anyone can be arrested and accused of anything, and conviction is almost guaranteed.

We have to call out the lawmakers and law officials, the state and city reps, DAs, judges, politicians, police unions - everybody who deems themselves and enforcer of the law has to be held accountable. Justice is demanded. Sustainable change is necessary. But we know that we all have to continue to do our part in the community.

TPP replicates similar language from past trade agreements that has allowed foreign corporations the right to challenge U.S. federal, state, and local laws outside of American courts. These tribunals will not meet our high standard of transparency and due process, and they will rely on weak impartiality rules for selecting judges.

It would be a very good thing for all involved - the country, an independent judiciary, and the Left itself - if liberals take a page from David von Drehle and their own judges of the New Deal era, kick their addiction to constitutional litigation, and return to their New Deal roots of trying to win elections rather than lawsuits.

As any opera fan knows, lawyers and judges do not fare well in most operas. Just consider the productions of 'Andrea Chenier,' 'Aida, Norma,' 'Billy Budd,' 'Peter Grimes,' 'The Crucible,' 'Lost in the Stars,' 'The Marriage of Figaro,' 'The Makropulos Case' and Wagner's 'Ring' cycle. Around 1810, the theme of justice emerged in opera.

How we decide the vexed issue of the method of selection of judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts would determine the future of our democracy and the rule of law in the country. We are faced with the twin problem of selecting the best judges and also ensuring that the judiciary would be insulated from executive interference.

Our constitution should be inspired by the philosophy of the Koran with principles that are set in stone and not open to the whims of individual judges, as is the case now. In particular, the constitution should protect every citizen's basic human rights regardless of their sex, status or sect. Everyone should be equal before the law.

I'm of the opinion that a duck does not change styles every time it crosses a state line. I think they sound the same way from Canada all the way to the coast. As far as championship calling... I realize that a duck could not win a world championship, and that's why I don't do that. When it comes to duck calling, our judges have wings.

Tell me how a person judges his or her self-esteem, and I will tell you how that person operates at work, in love, in sex, in parenting, in every important aspect of existence - and how high he or she is likely to rise. The reputation you have with yourself - your self-esteem - is the single most important factor for a fulfilling life.

As a general rule, I do not think it appropriate for judges to heap either praise or censure upon a legislative measure that comes before them, lest it be thought that their validation, invalidation, or interpretation of it is driven by their desire to expand or constrict what they personally approve or disapprove as a matter of policy.

Remember when John Roberts was seeking confirmation of the Supreme Court, and he said judges should be just like umpires, just calling balls and strikes? Well, turnabout is fair play. What baseball needs behind the plate are umpires like those judges who are called strict constructionists, which means you follow subtle law to the letter.

I've been amazed by the success of 'The Great British Bake Off.' I've been 'rediscovered' at the age of 76. When I was asked to be a judge, I said I wanted to be myself. I didn't want to shout like some other television judges. I also said I was a very bad bread maker, so would the programme makers find someone to help on the bread scene?

One of the most gratifying, rewarding things is when people come up, and they tell you how the show influenced their lives in a very positive way. When I do these things like Comic Con, I get people who are lawyers, judges, plumbers, carpenters, and entire families, and it's mostly for 'Batman.' But now, amazingly, it's also for 'Family Guy.'

I can't read music. Instead, I'd do stuff inside the piano, do harmonics and all kinds of crazy things. They used to put me in these annual piano contests down at Long Beach City College, and two years in a row, I won first prize - out of like 5,000 kids! The judges were like, 'Very interesting interpretation!' I thought I was playing it right.

Share This Page