I do not believe there are any circumstances in which a judge should consider his or her own values or policy preferences in determining what the law means.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
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.
A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge... stretching for results he prefers rather than those the law demands.
Judges should interpret the law, not make it.
Judges should interpret the laws according to what they say, not according to what the judges wish they would say. Judges are supposed to interpret the laws; they are not supposed to make them.
I don't think a judge should be too much involved in outside activities.
As a general rule, I do not think judges should consider current societal preferences when ruling on constitutional challenges.
Our role as judges is to interpret the law.
If the courts are making the decisions, it matters who the judge is and, of course, people are concerned with what is the bottom line.
Judges should always behave judicially by adjudicating, never politically by legislating. I leave policy to policymakers. They're preeminent, but they're not omnipotent. In other words, lawmakers decide if laws pass, but judges decide if laws pass muster.
It seems to me that an unjust law is no law at all.
No opposing quotes found.