Jonathan Turley Quotes

An essential function of the Court is to revise incorrect or outdated prior rulings. Over the last century, the Court has overruled itself about twice a year—roughly the same rate at which the Court has overturned acts of Congress.

I sometimes think if someone appealed the Ten Commandments to some of our courts, they would rule - 'Thou shalt not, unless you feel strongly to the contrary'.

We may have lured judges into roaming at large in the constitutional field.

Certain characteristics about 'Marbury v. Madison' are, I think, indisputable. Marbury was the first Supreme Court decision ever to strike down an act of Congress as unconstitutional. Marbury stands for the authority of the Supreme Court to have and to exercise that power.

What five members of the Supreme Court say the law is may be something vastly different from what Congress intended the law to be.

Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so.

There's no question that Roberts will vote like William Rehnquist... If he swings, it will be from right to far right.

Justice Scalia is predictable. He can be counted on to come down with a conservative opinion, and generally, to bring Justice Clarence Thomas with him.

It is best that laws should be so constructed as to leave as little as possible to the decision of those who judge.

Our Federal judicial rulings have come to reek with the snap judgments of New Dealers.... The Supreme Court of the United States as assumed quasi-legislative authority.

The [Supreme] Court did not interpret the Constitution—the court amended it.

The real difficulty is not with the Constitution but with the judges who interpret it.

The Supreme Court, when it decides a new legal question, does not make illegal what was previously legal; it gives a final authoritative determination of whether an action was legal when it took place.

Constitutions are interpreted differently from statutes.

We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.

It is Gloria Steinem’s worst nightmare. Clarence Thomas really did pick the next President of the United States.

The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.

Supreme Court 5 to 4 opinions highlight the fact that one man had the decision ... It just makes unavoidable for everybody the awareness of the authoritarian nature of the institution, and of how narrowly that authority rests in one individual perhaps

People expect that the law will be what the Supreme Court told them what the law was going to be.

Now the Senate is looking for 'moderate' judges, 'mainstream' judges. What in the world is a moderate interpretation of a constitutional text? Halfway between what it says and what we'd like it to say?

Look out: The Supreme Court’s black-robed gang of far right ideologues are rampaging again!

Sam Alito replacing Justice O'Connor was a very significant change. He is much more conservative. And, as for John Roberts, he is much more in the direction of protecting the rights of very rich people to donate money to campaigns than Bill Rehnquist ever was.

If the court is a political institution making important political decisions, then the public should debate the politics of Supreme Court decisions.

Courts do not make the law.

It is not the responsibility of the judiciary to amend poor legislative drafting, even if judges would personally prefer a different outcome than what is required by a statute's text.