Judicial Qualifications Quotes

My concern was whether I could do the job of a justice well enough to convince the nation that my appointment was the right move.

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

Scorecards are common in the political process, but they are inappropriate in the judicial process. The most important tools in the judicial confirmation process are not litmus paper and a calculator.

I believe strongly that we should have nominees to the United States Supreme Court based on their qualifications rather than any litmus test.

It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role. Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president's choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends.

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.

I don’t see why a Supreme Court justice has to have previous experience as a judge.

Judgeships normally are rewards for political service … politics does play a large role in federal judicial selection …. Few judges in our history are thought to have performed with great distinction.

Mainstream America, in the long run, will always stand for highly qualified, impartial judges and for a fair process and for senators who do their jobs and vote - not who unfairly smear good men like Judge Alito.

I've long favored smart judicial-selection reform - every member of my court does - and every legislative session, reform measures are filed... and then they fail.

We're happy to see, obviously, the resounding support for Judge [Merric] Garland, an unbelievable - unbelievably strong, unquestioned excellence as a judge for the last 18 years on the second highest court in the land and somebody who's dedicated his life to the law.

Merrick Garland was the most qualified nominee, not just in our lifetimes but perhaps in the history of the United States Supreme Court. The chief judge of the D.C. Circuit for 20 years, the nation's second-highest court. Never once been overruled by the Court in his 20 years. He was extraordinary.

If Harriet Miers were not a crony of the president of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her.

Seats on the [Court] bench are not reserved for causes or interests. They're given to those who will uphold the rule of law so long as the nominee is well-qualified to interpret and apply the law.

Candidly, Justice Thomas, I do not believe that you were indeed the most competent person to be on the Supreme Court.

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

When President Donald Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve on the Supreme Court, I said that he deserved a fair hearing and a vote. I said this even though Senate Republicans filibustered dozens of President Obama's judicial nominees and then stopped President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick Garland.

Nobody is entitled to a promotion to the Supreme Court.

If Democrats get another Elena Kagan, who has no business being there, if they get another Senorita Sonia Sotomayor, if they get another Stephen Breyer, who may be one of the absolute worst, Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg, if they get another one of these, then we don't have a Supreme Court, folks.

Here is a needle President Obama needs to thread if he chooses a ninth. The nominee would need to be so strongly qualified that he or she would be hard to reject. The person must also be willing to be nominated even though leading Senate Republicans have said they will not consider anyone the president names.

(H)er qualifications for the Supreme Court are non-existent. She is not a brilliant jurist, indeed, has never been a judge. She is not a scholar of the law. Researchers are hard-pressed to dig up an opinion. She has not had a brilliant career in politics, the academy, the corporate world or public forum. Were she not a friend of Bush, and female, she would never have even been considered.

One is entitled to say without qualification that the correlation between prior judicial experience and fitness for the Supreme Court is zero.

My mother used to say: 'It's not enough to be Hungarian. You still need a little talent, too.' To paraphrase her, its not enough to be conservative, you still need to have the brainpower to be a Supreme Court justice. And, if Harriet Miers is confirmed, she likely won't be in the same league with her colleagues in terms of gray matter.

What I wanted was for everyone listening to understand that these things mattered - not necessarily for me, but in this particular forum they mattered in terms of whether of not we were getting a person who should sit on the Supreme Court.

Can the public feel secure with a host of judges elected for a variety of conflicting reasons.