Robert H. Jackson Quotes

One way for Constitutional change is the fact that [Supreme Court] justices are mortal.

I have not reached a considered position on the question of court-packing. Although I don't think we should be laughing at it.

Roosevelt got a chance to name an amazing nine justices of the Supreme Court. He was not namby-pamby on this question. He wanted people who shared his views, he wanted liberals, and he wanted lots of them.

I do not believe it is the function of the judiciary to step in and change the law because the times have changed.

The country is yearning for a change. I'd rather take my chances on somebody new, particularly with regard to the Supreme Court.

Israel's Supreme Court is one of the best in the world, and I think that it should stay that way; I don't want to weaken it, I just want to change its approach.

Now that the Court has declared money to be speech, I say we replace the current Court with some Ben Franklins, Thomas Jeffersons, George Washingtons, a couple of Susan B. Anthony's, Roosevelts, Hamiltons, a Sacajawea or two, and an Abe Lincoln to cover Scalia in full.

The notion that Congress can change the meaning given a constitutional provision by the Court is subversive of the function of judicial review; and it is not the less so because the Court promises to allow it only when the Constitution is moved to the left.

The president appoints the judges. Your lives and your children's lives can change by all of these appellate court judges who will be appointed who will reinterpret laws, and things can change.

The courts may be the most important instrument for social, economic, and political change.

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.

The case was always a difficult one, but the form the opinions took would seem to indicate such a marked cleavage in the Supreme Court that it may be, and probably is, a forecast of what we may expect with reference to almost any form of social legislation that Congress may enact. Apparently there are at least four justices who are against any attempt to use the power of the federal government for bettering general conditions, except within the narrowest limitations. This is a terrific handicap and brings up again, rather acutely, matters we have previously discussed, including a proposed constitutional amendment .

If the Constitution, as interpreted by the Court, prevents the proper solution of our social and economic problems, should we do something to the Constitution to meet the difficulty, or should we do something to the Supreme Court?

If the people desire changes in the highest judicial tribunal in the land, the people can speak with their power to amend their own Constitution.

I am not willing to trust the [Supreme] court because very much of the trouble in which we are now involved [the Civil War] may be attributed to the fact that we had a pro slavery judiciary.

Constitutional reform is exasperatingly slow.

Instead of allowing the political processes to run their course ... the Court seeks to do Congress' job for it, compensating for congressional inaction. It is not unreasonable to think that this encourages the political branches to pass their problems to the judiciary.

We in Congress don’t have much influence on the Supreme Court. We confirm judges and then we never hear from them. They don’t call. They don’t write.

In the fifteen years since Earl Warren became Chief Justice, the Court has brought about more social change than most Congresses and most presidents.

In this Court dissents have gradually become majority opinions.

Obama and Biden want a bench crammed full of liberal judicial activists, and it's up to the American people to tell them 'no.'

I have always thought that term limits for Justices sound good until you really give the issue some thought.

The American people increasingly are losing confidence in the Supreme Court, in large part because of the behavior of certain members of that Court and because of certain rulings, including the Dobbs decision, and taking away a precedent that had been in place for 50 years, protecting a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body. So I do believe that there should be some kind of reform of the Court.

Each scandal uncovered, each norm broken, each precedent-shattering ruling delivered is a reminder that we must restore justice and balance to the rogue, radical Supreme Court.

There has been a sea change in the way Democrats view and talk about the Supreme Court. Democrats used to respectfully disagree with the justices. Now they call them illegitimate and corrupt, partisan and extreme.