Louis D. Brandeis Quotes

The Supreme Court overrules, distinguishes, and upholds prior precedents. Sometimes it ignores them. But it does not - cannot - 'defy' them.

The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.

The judicial power of every well-constituted government must be coextensive with the legislative, and must be capable of deciding every judicial question which grows out of the Constitution and laws.

Our Constitution was not written in the sands to be washed away by each successive wave of new judges blown in by each successive political wind.

Judge Roberts has assured me personally that he has a healthy respect for precedent and the hard-won rights of Americans.

Over the course of 19 years on the Supreme Court, I learned some lessons about the Constitution of the United States.

My feeling is that the judge has a responsibility to the Constitution first, precedent second. Precedent is one factor. It is not the only factor. If it was the only factor, then, you know, we wouldn't have had Roe vs. Wade. We wouldn't have had Griswold. We wouldn't have had Lawrence. We wouldn't have had all these cases which the Left love.

The Supreme Court is the living voice of the Constitution—that is, of the will of the people expressed in the fundamental law they have enacted. It is ... the conscience of the people.... It is the guarantee of the minority who, when threatened by the impatient vehemence of the majority, can appeal to this permanent law, finding the interpreter and enforcer thereof in a Court set high above the assaults of faction.

I do not want to amend the Constitution to override the decision of the Supreme Court.

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.

In this Court dissents have gradually become majority opinions.

I think it makes no difference whether or not I endorse it. The Constitution is as the Supreme Court interprets it and I must conform to this and do my best to see that it is carried out in this country.

What many people, I think, don't really understand is how much their rights really turn on the interpretation of the Supreme Court.

Laws, especially those of a constitutional nature like the Basic Law, which have been formulated through reasonable legislative processes, should never be freely interpreted or lightly abandoned.

I think justices of all stripes agree that stare decisis is important, but not an inextricable command. It's not inflexible; it's not absolute.

A Supreme Court decision does not establish a "supreme law of the land" that is binding on all persons and parts of government, henceforth and forevermore.

I think the Supreme Court does have the authority, which is not used, to declare a blanket right for all people, all adults.

My touchstone for every question is the Constitution.

I don't believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it.

The language of the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws did not change between 1896 and 1954, and it would be very hard to say that the obvious facts on which 'Plessy' was based had changed.

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.

Of the judicial department of the Government, the Supreme Court is the head and representative, and to it must come for final decision all the great legal questions which may arise under the Constitution, the laws, or the treaties of the United States.

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

The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.