Quote

Many voters think about the makeup of the Supreme Court when they are choosing a president. The justices deal not only with constitutional issues but also with social issues that were unknown to the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution more than 200 years ago.

It is a mistake to suppose that the Supreme Court is either honoured or helped by being spoken of as beyond criticism. On the contrary, the life and character of its justices should be the objects of constant watchfulness by all, and its judgments subject to the freest criticism.

Though the critics are loud and the temptations to join them may be many, mark me down too as a believer that the traditional account of the judicial role Justice Scalia defended will endure.

This is the most historic moment in Supreme Court history in our lifetime, no question about it. These are justices who are going to serve for decades.

And I think within the pages of The Betrayal of America I think I present an overwhelming case that these five justices were up to no good, and they deliberately set out to hand the election to George Bush.

I think I present an overwhelming case that these five justices were up to no good, and they deliberately set out to hand the election to George Bush.

Supreme Court arguments and decisions are fascinating to a few of us and really pretty boring to most.

We current justices read the Constitution in the only way that we can: as 20th-century Americans.

I think there needs to be a range of justices, of all types. You can't just pick one type.

I think justice Scalia is really the gold standard of what a justice should be. Somebody, regardless of how he feels on an issue, is going to look at the text of the Constitution, look at the text of the law, and make his judgment.