Michael McKenzie Quotes

If the state has a problem with judicial impartiality, it is largely one the state brought upon itself by continuing the practice of popularly electing judges.

Of all officers of government, those in whose appointment any participation of popular suffrage is the most objectionable are judicial officers.

Republicans say to Democrats, “Your judges are political activists.” The Democrats respond to the Republicans, “Your judges are political activists.” So the public thinks that all judges are political activists and just politicians in robes. This is very worrying.

Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.

I don't think there should be a litmus test on judges, no matter who the president is.

And the problem is once you get into this campaign business and begin to have a lot of money, then the person on the bench begins to think - what's going to happen if I decide the case this way or that way?

The British judiciary is one of the most corrupt in the world because of politically active judges

If the country comes to believe that judges are politicians in robes no end of difficulty will come from that.

That judges of important causes should hold office for life is not a good thing, for the mind grows old as well as the body.

Do not use a litmus test in the appointment of judges. Just get good judges.

It's important not to get into the business of characterizing judges based on one decision they make

I was driven years ago to the conclusion that political considerations had not hurt the character of appointments here [the supreme court].

As, for the safety of society, we commit honest maniacs to Bedlam, so judges should be withdrawn from the bench, whose erroneous biases are leading us to dissolution.

If it can be thought that a Supreme Court Justice can be bought so cheap then the nation is really in trouble.

The process has failed to prevent the President, the Senate, or both, from caring primarily about the immediate political gains of an appointment, and thus from being indifferent or even consciously opposed to considering any of the factors truly relevant to selecting competent jurists.

It has not been unknown that judges persist in error to avoid giving the appearance of weakness and vacillation.

Judges are terrible politicians.

A state sets itself on a collision course with the First Amendment when it chooses to popularly elect its judges but restricts a candidate’s campaign speech. To the extent states wish to avoid a politicized judiciary, they can choose to do so by not electing judges.

Whatever final judgment awaits 'Bush v. Gore' in the annals of history, I am certain that the good work and good faith of the U.S. federal judiciary as a whole will continue to sustain public confidence at a level never beyond repair.

I don't think that a Justice should have uppermost in her mind, 'A Democratic president appointed me, so I must leave to be sure that another Democratic president can appoint my successor.'

Appointments to the higher judiciary must be through transparent processes, which ensure that persons of impeccable integrity and high competence are appointed to these positions.

Judges certainly have political connections and strong political views, but that doesn't mean they can't rise above politics when they hear cases. We expect them to, and the law presumes they do.

What is it that makes us trust our judges? Their independence in office and manner of appointment.

I do think there is a value in the services of judges for long periods of time.

We need to consider nominations as thoroughly and carefully as the American people deserve. No one is entitled to a free pass to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.