The implication that everyone would have to accept its judgments uncritically, that it was a decision from which there could be no appeal, was astonishing.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Because an appeal makes logical sense is no guarantee that it will work.
I think it's so easy to be judgmental of other people's decisions.
Human judges can show mercy. But against the laws of nature, there is no appeal.
I'm a judge. It seemed to me that it was critical to try to take action to stem the criticism and help people understand that in the constitutional framework, it's terribly important not to have a system of retaliation against decisions people don't like.
The ultimate court of appeal is observation and experiment... not authority.
I missed a lot of decisions. At the time of making such a decision, there was no doubt in my mind as to its correctness. However, a second or two later I felt that I erred and wished I could change my original ruling.
I can't analyse my appeal. If I did, I'd be in a straitjacket.
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.
Any critic is entitled to wrong judgments, of course. But certain lapses of judgment indicate the radical failure of an entire sensibility.
If nations could only depend upon fair and impartial judgments in a world court of law, they would abandon the senseless, savage practice of war.
No opposing quotes found.