For conservative leaders, making candidates pay them court, publicly and ostentatiously, is a colossal source of their symbolic power before their followers. It's kabuki theater, mostly.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
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.
The kind of corruption the media talk about, the kind the Supreme Court was concerned about, involves the putative sale of votes in exchange for campaign contributions.
Legislators and judges are necessarily exposed to all the temptations of money, fame, and power, to induce them to disregard justice between parties, and sell the rights, and violate the liberties of the people. Jurors, on the other hand, are exposed to none of these temptations.
It's fine to get paid and get a big verdict, but to go out and represent people, sometimes in unglamorous ways, is really what lawyering is all about.
The Supreme Court needs jurists, not politicians.
The price of justice is eternal publicity.
One of the litmus tests for judicial conservatism is the idea of judicial restraint - that courts should give substantial deference to the decisions of the political process. When Congress and the president enact a law, conservatives generally say, judges should avoid 'legislating from the bench.'
People demand a lot of the justice system and they demand things that it can't deliver.
The first step into justice begins with the politicians. You have to demand from yourself what you demand from people.
Justices are not politicians. They don't run on a political platform, and senators should not ask them to do so.