The role of a practicing attorney is to achieve a desirable result for the client in the particular case at hand. But a judge can't think that way. A judge can't have any agenda, a judge can't have any preferred outcome in any particular case and a judge certainly doesn't have a client.
If I had received any information at any point regarding any of the matters you referred to ... I would never have had anything to do with it.
I would try to emulate her dedication and her integrity and her dedication to the case-by-case process of adjudication.
A judge can't have any agenda. A judge can't have a preferred outcome in any particular case.
Private religious speech can't be discriminated against. It has to be treated equally with secular speech.
If I'm confirmed, I'll be myself.
I'm not any kind of a bigot, I'm not.
I did it because that's what I thought the law required.
The things that I said in the 1985 memo were a true expression of my views at the time from my vantage point as an attorney in the Solicitor General's office. But that was 20 years ago and a great deal has happened in the case law since then.
I have been a judge for 15 years and I've made up my own mind during all that time.
That was a statement that I made at a prior period of time when I was performing a different role and, as I said yesterday, when someone becomes a judge you really have to put aside the things you did as a lawyer at prior points in your legal career.
This is not an ordinary lawsuit, and the issues may consequently take on added significance.
The district court's opinion ... is subject to two interpretations, neither of which has a sound legal basis.
A judge can't have any preferred outcome in any particular case. The judge's only obligation and it's a solemn obligation is to the rule of law.
Judicial review after a final decision is the general rule. You're assuming bad faith on the part of those making these decisions.
I think if anybody looks at my record on the court of appeals, they can get an idea about the way I approach the work of being a judge. And that's what I would try to do on the Supreme Court.
I think that the legitimacy of the court would be undermined in any case if the court made a decision based on its perception of public opinion.
None of the legal issues presented by this case seems to warrant Supreme Court review.
This is a way for me to make a contribution to the country and society.
The president has to follow the Constitution. No one is above the law.
Congress was acutely aware that for more than a decade before the passage of these laws, every attempt to close or realign a major base in this country had been blocked by Congress itself or by the courts. Congress undoubtedly recognized that objective and prompt decisions concerning base closings are vitally important, particularly at a time of budgetary problems and rapidly changing defense needs.
The constitution divides the powers related to making war between the president and the Congress. It gives Congress the power to declare war. It gives Congress the power of the purse.
There is no categorical 'harassment exception' to the First Amendment's free speech clause. There is of course no question that non-expressive, physically harassing conduct is entirely outside the ambit of the free speech clause. But there is also no question that the free speech clause protects a wide variety of speech that listeners may consider deeply offensive, including statements that impugn another's race or national origin or that denigrate religious beliefs.
I have been committed to carrying out my duties ... in accordance with both the letter and spirit of all applicable rules of ethics and canons of conduct.
Yes, that's, I think, an extension of the traditional right that I was talking about that existed under common law, and it's been developed by state legislatures, and in some instances, state courts to deal with the living will situation and advances ... in medical technology, which create new issues in this area.
Picture Quotes to Inspire and Delight