It's a zero sum game: the Court either expands individual rights or expands the government's right to regulate individuals.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
That is the definition of equal justice under law: everyone gets a fair shot, everyone pays their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.
The court makes an amazing amount of decisions that ought to be made by the people.
Judges need to restrict themselves to the proper resolution of the case before them. They need to avoid the temptation to set broad policy.
In terms of having the American people look at the court and think of it as being fair and appropriate for our nation, it helps to have women, plural, on the court.
The Supreme Court, of course, has the responsibility of ensuring that our government never oversteps its proper bounds or violates the rights of individuals. But the Court must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people.
The law serves of nought else in these days but for to do wrong, for nothing is spread almost but false matters by color of the law for reward, dread and favor and so no remedy is had in the Court of Equity in any way.
What the Court really has refused to recognize is the fundamental interest all individuals have in controlling the nature of their intimate associations.
The Court's primary duty, in short, is not to minimize its role or avoid friction with the political branches, but to try as best it can to get the Constitution right.
You will read in the newspaper more often about federal courts, but the law that affects people, the trials that affect human beings are by and large in the state courts.
If, at the limit, you can rule without crime, you cannot do so without injustices.
No opposing quotes found.