Quotessence
Home / Topics / Supreme Court Quotes

Supreme Court Quotes

Browse 562 quotes about Supreme Court.

Related topics

JusticePeopleDecisionPresidentStatesLawIfsSupreme Court JusticeCourt JusticeWantConstitutionCasesJudgingShouldUnitedThinkingCongressYearsCountryDoeGovernmentSaidUnited StatesFirstsPoliticalAmericaChristianMadeRightsSchoolCourt DecisionKnowsVoteCitizensElectionHas BeensReligiousRulingLawyerMenNeedsSenateAbortionImportantIssuesWayAppointmentsBelieveBranchesFactsGivingHouseKindOpinionTodayWorldEqualExecutivesSpeechUnconstitutionalHearingIndividualMatterNationsPolicyTwoWellsActionChiefsJudicialLastsLibertyLooksMayWould BeCareChief JusticeObamacarePersonsPositionProtectRoe V WadeUseWadeAmendmentsClintonCorporationsDemocracyFightingFiveHumansMeanMightNominationsPartyProudQualifiedRealSenatorsStillsmore

Supreme Court Quotes

“The 'originalism' of which they speak (they being the Supreme Court, the Federalist Society, and affiliated lawyers and politicians) treats the constitution like Evangelists treat the bible: they cherry-pick at whim which tenets they will uphold and which they will ignore, and, also, which they will distort so the text seems to agree with whatever it is they're claiming. Of course, it's as absurd to believe there is only deep truth to be found by trying to get into the mindset of a privileged white slave-owning land-owning cis male founder of this country as there is by trying to get into the mindset of whoever you believe wrote down the various pieces of the bible, both old and new testaments. And now they're chopping down the cherry tree out in the open with us all watching (well, watching only when we're not getting felled along with the branches) and they're speaking the truth about their intentions in a document called Project 2025. We all must read it carefully, read it and weep, weep and get angry, get angry and build strength, and then do all we can to stop them. It's now, baby, or never.”

TruthStrengthConstitutionCrisisManipulationSupreme CourtEvangelismDistortionCherry Picked Originalism
Author:Shellen Lubin
Create image

“... those selling abortion don't want them to have [the facts]," Virginia said heatedly. "Besides the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you. They judges seem to think we poor women would fall apart if we knew the facts, so they decided women don't have the right to know the full truth." She shook her head. "They've made it legal to withhold vital information, even when a woman requests it, for heaven's sake!”

FactsTruthWomenAbortionSupreme Court
Book:The Atonement Child
Create image

“Identifying the flaw in the US philosophical roots requires that we move beyond the intellectual and emotional climate in which the Constitution was conceived and adopted. The meanings of concepts and words change with use, and even the Supreme Court has admitted that the original perspective of the American social contract has been altered by the passage of time.”

PhilosophyGovernmentSupreme Court
Book:The Legal Universe: Observations of the Foundations of American Law
Create image

“If logic and reason, the hard, cold products of the mind, can be relied upon to deliver justice or produce the truth, how is it that these brain-heavy judges rarely agree? Five-to-four decisions are the rule, not the exception. Nearly half of the court must be unjust and wrong nearly half of the time. Each decision, whether the majority or minority, exudes logic and reason like the obfuscating ink from a jellyfish, and in language as opaque. The minority could have as easily become the decision of the court. At once we realize that logic, no matter how pretty and neat, that reason, no matter how seemingly profound and deep, does not necessarily produce truth, much less justice. Logic and reason often become but tools used by those in power to deliver their load of injustice to the people. And ultimate truth, if, indeed, it exists, is rarely recognizable in the endless rows of long words that crowd page after page of most judicial regurgitations.”

ReasonJusticeLogicInjusticeSupreme CourtJudiciaryJudges
Book:How to Argue and Win Every Time: At Home, At Work, In Court, Everywhere, Every Day
Create image

“Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good as well as by evil men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon but at other times and places the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. . . . Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard. It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

GovernmentAmericaFreedomUnited StatesDemocracyThoughtsUsaNationalismUnited States Of AmericaSupreme CourtDissentFirst AmendmentUsUnanimityBarnette
Author:Robert H. Jackson
Create image

“While significant strides have been made in the pursuit of life expectancy, healthcare, educational opportunities, and constitutional protections for women, the Supreme Court, in particular, still wrestles with their status, as evidenced by their problems in pursuing equal opportunity in education and employment, reproductive freedom, the military, and violence against women.”

FreedomViolenceSupreme CourtWomen S Rights
Book:The Legal Universe: Observations of the Foundations of American Law
Create image

“A wide assortment of children's rights advocates, lawyers, and mental health experts were watching closely when we asked the Court to declare life-without-parole sentences imposed on children unconstitutional. ....I told the Court that the United States is the only country in the world that imposes life imprisonment without parole sentences on children. I explained that condemning children violates international law, which bans these sentences for children. We showed the Court that these sentences are disproportionately imposed on children of color. We argued that the phenomenon of life sentences imposed on children is largely a result of harsh punishments that were created for career adult criminals and were were never intended for children--which made the imposition of such a sentence on juveniles like Terrance Graham and Joe Sullivan unusual. I also told the Court that to say to any child of thirteen that he is fit only to die in prison is cruel.”

ChildrenPrisonSentencesSupreme CourtImprisonmentCourtsAdolescentsSentencingLife SentencesLife Without Parole
Book:Just Mercy
Create image

“I'm thinking about how as a human being Trump is immune from all the normal inhibiting factors that cause people to be good, and caring, and careful (whether because they believe in humanity or they fear God's wrath). No self-awareness. No empathy. No humility. No shame. I'm thinking about how as a society we can never wholly become immune from diseased minds like his because if we ever did find a 'perfect' structure, we would calcify the findings of that moment and create a new kind of 'originalism' that could become equally as dangerous as any other (the origin story of the United States, the constitution, the Bible). That belief that it was perfect would itself defeat us.”

WisdomSocietyDangerAcceptanceTrumpDiseaseImperfectionSupreme CourtReality QuotesBecoming Immune
Author:Shellen Lubin
Create image

“...even though I’m a product of Brown v. Board of Education, about 12 years ago I realized that I don’t think we could win Brown v. Board of Education today.... I don’t think our court would do anything that disruptive on behalf of disfavored people, on behalf of marginalized people. And that terrified me. But it also energized me to recognize that we were going to have to get outside the court and create a different consciousness. The question for me is, why wouldn’t we win? And it’s because we haven’t really reckoned with these larger issues of what it means to be a country dealing with our history of racial inequality.”

LawEqualityInequalityAfrican AmericanSupreme CourtBlacksSegregationCourtsBrown V Board Of EducationRace Relatios
Author:Bryan Stevenson
Create image

“In 1996 Dorothy Mackey wrote an Op-ed piece, “Violence from comrades a fact of life for military women.” ABC News 20/ 20 did a segment on rape in the military. By November four women came forward at Aberdeen Proving Ground, in Maryland, about a pattern of rape by drill sergeants. In 1997 the military finds three black drill sergeants to scapegoat. They were sent to prison and this left the commanding generals and colonels untouched to retire quietly. The Army appointed a panel to investigate sexual harassment. One of the panelists was the sergeant Major of the Army, Eugene McKinney. On hearing his nomination, former associates and one officer came forward with charges of sexual coercion and misconduct. In 1998 he was acquitted of all charges after women spoke (of how they were being stigmatized, their careers stopped, and their characters questioned. A Congressional panel studied military investigative practices. In 1998, the Court of Appeals ruled against Dorothy Mackay. She had been outspoken on media and highly visible. There is an old Arabic saying “When the hen crows cut off her head.”“This court finds that Col. Milam and Lt. Col. Elmore were acting in the scope of their duties” in 1991-1992 when Capt. Mackey alleged they harassed, intimidated and assaulted her. A legislative remedy was asked for and she appealed to the Supreme Court. Of course the Supreme Court refused to hear the case in 1999, as it always has under the feres doctrine. Her case was cited to block the suit of one of the Aberdeen survivors as well!”

LawUnited StatesMilitaryRacismArmyCourtCongressSexismLegislationSupreme CourtRapeSoldiersSexual AssaultAir ForceAbuse Of PowerRape CultureColonelsSexual HarassmentCoverupComradesAbuse Of AuthorityMilitary Sexual AssaultFeres DoctrineFeresWomen In The Military
Book:Conduct Unbecoming: Rape, Torture, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder from Military Commanders
Create image

“FORGET FERES DOCTRINE And the military has immunity! Yes! The feres doctrine! It states “the Government is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to servicemen where injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service” (U.S. Supreme Court 1950). Federal law and our Supreme Court shield acts of rape and sexual brutality in the military as proven by its subsequent ruling on a 2001 case that denied a plaintiffs right to file a civil suit against her accusers. Yet when women report the crime, it is handled internally Commanders are given the discretion to resolve complaints. The report may not go beyond his office. Many times he's part of the problem or a sympathizer with the offender. This certainly was my case! Our Supreme Court ruled as recently as 2001 that rape is an injury incident to the course of activity in the service! THE HEINOUS CRIME OF RAPE IS ACCEPTABLE AND CONDONED BY OUR SUPREME COURT! WOMEN ARE FAIR GAME FOR RAPE AND HARRASSMENT, ACCORDING TO OUR SUPREME COURT! CONGRESS IS NO BETTER! NO LAWS ARE PASSED TO PROTECT US IN THE MILITARY AGAINST THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION FOR THE FELONY OF RAPE!”

GovernmentLawUnited StatesMilitaryRacismArmyCourtCongressEqualitySexismLegislationSupreme CourtRapeSoldiersSexual AssaultAir ForceAbuse Of PowerRape CultureColonelsFelonySexual HarassmentCoverupComradesHarrassmentAbuse Of AuthorityMilitary Sexual AssaultFeres DoctrineFeresWomen In The MilitaryFederealStatute Of Limitations
Book:Conduct Unbecoming: Rape, Torture, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder from Military Commanders
Create image

“The Supreme Court is composed of two groups known as the Infallible Five and the Furious Four. The first group writes those majority decisions on patent law that have brought patent lawyers to their present condition. The second groups writes the dissenting opinions, trying to hold to the law as it was laid down by the first groups the week before. The composition of each group shifts from decision to decision, so that no one justice is right all the time. They sort of pass the infallibility around to keep peace in the family." -- The Improbable Profession”

LawSupreme CourtPatentsJudgesPatent Law
Author:Leonard Lockhard
Create image

“Why shouldn't two new Justices be appointed each administration? A re-elected President would then have four opportunities to appoint. At the beginning of each administration, the two oldest Justices would automatically hand in their resignations, to take effect at the President's convenience. Thus new blood would be infused into the Court at regular intervals without rancour, and the Court would normally be renewed every 16 years ... Whenever death or retirement occurred, the President would have an extra appointment.”

RetirementSupreme CourtJudicialJudgesJudicial SystemPresident Of The United StatesJudges And JusticeFederal Court1937Presidential Appointment
Book:Born to Rebel: The Life of Harriet Boyd Hawes
Create image

“With the fate of Roe v. Wade now hanging in the balance, I'm calling for a special 'pro-life tax.' If the fervent prayers of the religious right are answered and abortion is banned, let's take it a step further. All good Christians should legally be required to pony up; share the financial burden of raising an unwanted child. That's right: put your money where your Bible is. I'm not just talking about paying for food and shelter or even a college education. All those who advocate for driving a stake through the heart of a woman's right to choose must help bear the financial burden of that child's upbringing. They must be legally as well as morally bound to provide the child brought into this world at their insistence with decent clothes to wear; a toy to play with; a bicycle to ride -- even if they don't consider these things 'necessities.' Pro-lifers must be required to provide each child with all those things they would consider 'necessary' for their own children. Once the kid is out of the womb, don't wash your hands and declare 'Mission Accomplished!' It doesn't end there. If you insist that every pregnancy be carried to term, then you'd better be willing to pay the freight for the biological parents who can't afford to. And -- like the good Christians that you are -- should do so without complaint.”

Supreme CourtWomen S RightsReligious ExtremismDonald Trump QuotesPro Choice QuotesAbortion QuotesReligious Right QuotesSupreme Court QuotesRoe V Wade Quotes
Book:SILO GIRL
Create image

“As heirs to a legacy more than two centuries old, it is understandable why present-day Americans would take their own democracy for granted. A president freely chosen from a wide-open field of two men every four years; a Congress with a 99% incumbency rate; a Supreme Court comprised of nine politically appointed judges whose only oversight is the icy scythe of Death -- all these reveal a system fully capable of maintaining itself. But our perfect democracy, which neither needs nor particularly wants voters, is a rarity. It is important to remember there still exist other forms of government in the world today, and that dozens of foreign countries still long for a democracy such as ours to be imposed on them.”

HumorPoliticsDemocracyCongressVotingSupreme Court
Book:America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction
Create image

“Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why if all politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes? You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don’t have Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don’t write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don’t set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don’t control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does. One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices — 545 human beings out of 235 million — are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. I excused the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered by private central bank. I exclude all of the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislators’ responsibility to determine how he votes. Don’t you see the con game that is played on the people by the politicians? Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of Tip O’Neill, who stood up and criticized Ronald Reagan for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating appropriations and taxes. Those 545 people and they alone are responsible. They and they alone should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses — provided they have the gumption to manage their own employees.”

Wake UpCongressSupreme CourtWake Up CallUnited States Politics
Author:Charley Reese
Create image

“It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision [in Bush v. Gore]. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is pellucidly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.”

Supreme CourtRule Of Law20072000Bush V GorePerfectly Clear
Book:The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court
Create image

“In one respect, though, the Court received unfair criticism for Bush v. Gore—from those who said the justices in the majority "stole the election" for Bush. Rather, what the Court did was remove any uncertainty about the outcome. It is possible that if the Court had ruled fairly—or better yet, not taken the case at all—Gore would have won the election. A recount might have led to a Gore victory in Florida. It is also entirely possible that, had the Court acted properly and left the resolution of the election to the Florida courts, Bush would have won anyway. The recount of the 60,000 undervotes might have resulted in Bush's preserving his lead. The Florida legislature, which was controlled by Republicans, might have stepped in and awarded the state's electoral votes to Bush. And if the dispute had wound up in the House of Representatives, which has the constitutional duty to resolve controversies involving the Electoral College, Bush might have won there, too. The tragedy of the Court's performance in the election of 2000 was not that it led to Bush's victory but the inept and unsavory manner with which the justices exercised their power.”

Supreme Court20072000Bush V GorePerfectly Clear
Book:The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court
Create image

“In public at least, Roberts himself purports to have a different view of the Court than his conservative sponsors. "Judges are like umpires," he said at his confirmation hearing. "Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them." Elsewhere, Roberts has often said, "Judges are not politicians." None of this is true. Supreme Court justices are nothing at all like baseball umpires. It is folly to pretend that the awesome work of interpreting the Constitution, and thus defining the rights and obligations of American citizenship, is akin to performing the rote […] task of calling balls and strikes. When it comes to the core of the Court's work, determining the contemporary meaning of the Constitution, it is ideology, not craft or skill, that controls the outcome of cases.”

PoliticsHypocrisySupreme CourtChief Justice2007Epilogue
Book:The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court
Create image

“Random chance—a freakishly close vote in the single decisive state—gave the Supreme Court the chance to resolve the 2000 presidential election. The character of the justices themselves turned that opportunity into one of the lowest moments in the Court's history. The struggle following the election of 2000 took thirty-six days, and the Court was directly involved for twenty-one of them. Yet over this brief period, the justices displayed all of their worst traits—among them vanity, overconfidence, impatience, arrogance, and simple political partisanship. These three weeks taint an otherwise largely admirable legacy. The justices did almost everything wrong. They embarrassed themselves and the Supreme Court.”

Supreme Court20072000Bush V GoreTo The Brink
Book:The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court
Create image

“There were two kinds of cases before the Supreme Court. There were abortion cases—and there were all the others. Abortion was (and is) the central legal issue before the Court. It defined the judicial philosophies of the justices. It dominated the nomination and confirmation process. It nearly delineated the difference between the national Democratic and Republican parties.”

AbortionSupreme CourtUs Politics20071992
Book:The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court
Create image

“Few men or women in our lifetimes have been so unjustly vilified in the popular media as the late Justice Antonin Scalia of the United States Supreme Court. If you are not a lawyer who read his opinions, if you know nothing about Justice Scalia other than what you have read in the popular press, you have surely been deceived into believing that this man was some sort of archconservative who could regularly be counted upon to side with the government and trample the constitutional liberties of the poor and the powerless. The truth is much more complicated than that. While Justice Scalia was, by his own admission, exceptionally stingy in refusing to accept arguments about constitutional rights that involved some aspect of general "liberty" that are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution—rights like abortion, or same-sex marriage—when it came to the defense of constitutional liberties that are explicitly described in the Constitution, no other recent member of the Supreme Court was so uncompromisingly passionate and liberal in refusing to water down those protections.”

Supreme CourtConstitutional Rights2016ScotusAntonin Scalia
Book:You Have the Right to Remain Innocent
Create image

“Look it over some time. 'T is fine spoort if ye don't care f r checkers. Some say it laves th' flag up in th' air an' some say that's where it laves th' constitution. Annyhow, something'» in th' air. But there's wan thing I 'm sure about." " What's that ?" asked Mr. Hennessy. " That is," said Mr. Dooley, " no matther whether th' constitution follows th' flag or not, th' supreme coort follows th' iliction returns.”

Supreme CourtConstitutional LawCourtsInsular Cases
Book:Mr. Dooley's Opinions
Create image

“I'll now fall back a furlong or two in me chair, while me larned but misguided collagues r-read th' Histhry iv Iceland to show ye how wrong I am. But mind ye, what I 've said goes. I let thim talk because it exercises their throats, but ye 've heard all th' decision on this limon case that'll get into th' fourth reader.' A voice fr'm th' audjeence, ' Do I get me money back ? ' Brown J. : ' Who ar-re ye ? ' Th' Voice : ' Th' man that ownded th' limons.' Brown J. : ' I don't know.' (Gray J., White J., dissentin' an' th' r-rest iv th' birds concurrin' but fr entirely diff'rent reasons.)”

CustomsSupreme CourtCourtsInsular Cases
Book:Mr. Dooley's Opinions
Create image

“It was actually Thomas Jefferson himself who said 'we might as well ask a man to wear the coat that fitted him when he was a boy' as expect future generations to live under what he called 'the regime of their barbarous ancestors.' So even the founders that these kind of dead-hand originalists claim fidelity to understood better than their ideological descendants — today's judicial so-called conservatives — the importance of keeping with the times. And we deserve judges and justices who understand that.”

LawJusticeConstitutionSupreme CourtJudiciaryOriginalism
Author:Pete Buttigieg
Create image

“The blame for the overturning of Roe v Wade does not fall upon the overzealous, vindictive evangelical—either in a pew or judge’s robe—anymore than it does the bruised-knee legislator and his Plus-1, the campaign-financing lobbyist: All are boorish cultural phenomena, buoyed by society’s currents, political inertia determining their every direction. Instead, history will shake its head in disappointment at those who stood idly by and did nothing.”

AbortionSupreme CourtBirth ControlContraceptivesRoe V WadeMichael Gurnow
Author:Michael Gurnow
Create image

“This mostly restrictionist trend reached an important pivot in 2012. Three major developments prompted this change in direction and momentum. First, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its Arizona v. United States opinion, delivering its most consequential decision on the limits of state authority in immigration in three decades. Rejecting several provisions of Arizona's controversial omnibus immigration enforcement bill, SB 1070, the opinion nevertheless still left open possibilities for state and local involvement. Second, President Barack Obama, against the backdrop of a stalemate in comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) in Congress and contentious debates over the role of the federal executive in immigration enforcement, instituted the Deferred Action for Child Arrivals (DACA) program, providing administrative relief and a form of lawful presence to hundreds of thousands of undocumented youth. Finally, Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate whose platform supported laws like Arizona's and called them a model for the rest of the country, lost his bid for the White House with especially steep losses among Latinos and immigrant voters. After these events in 2012, restrictive legislation at the state level waned in frequency, and a growing number of states began to pass laws aimed at the integration of unauthorized immigrants. As this book goes to press, this integrationist trend is still continuing.”

Supreme CourtArizonaBarack Obama2012Immigration Law2012 ElectionUs ImmigrationFederal LawUsa ImmigrationMitt RomneyIntegrationist LawRestrictionist LawUnauthorized ImmigrantsArizona LawState LawsSupreme Court Opinion
Book:The New Immigration Federalism
Create image

“America's attention had turned to race relations during that winter of 1954-55, largely driven by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the nation's public schools would eventually have to be racially integrated. Crispus Attucks students were studying black history without being fully aware that their basketball team was making it.”

BasketballIntegrationSupreme CourtBlack HistoryRace RelationsIntegratedUs Supreme CourtCrispus Attucks
Book:Unbeatable: How Crispus Attucks Basketball Broke Racial Barriers and Jolted the World
Create image

“The Court’s insistence that judges and lawyers rely nearly exclusively on history to interpret the Second Amendment thus raises a host of troubling questions. Consider, for example, the following. Do lower courts have the research resources necessary to conduct exhaustive historical analyses in every Second Amendment case? What historical regulations and decisions qualify as representative analogues to modern laws? How will judges determine which historians have the better view of close historical questions? Will the meaning of the Second Amendment change if or when new historical evidence becomes available? And, most importantly, will the Court’s approach permit judges to reach the outcomes they prefer and then cloak those outcomes in the language of history?”

Supreme Court2022Originalism
Book:New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen
Create image