Legal impartiality Quotes

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

Now it is clear, that if the government can exclude, on account either of their opinions or feelings, any persons thus drawn by lot, the trial is no longer a trial by 'the country,' but only by a portion of the country.

I don't think we need political activists on the Supreme Court or any other level of court.

The constitution [of England] does not allow reasons of State to influence our judgment: God forbid it should! We must not regard political consequences; how formidable soever they might be; if rebellion was the certain consequence, we are bound to say, Fiat justitia, ruat coelum

I don't have any respect for judges who arrive at the result first, and then try to figure out some way they can bend the law to reach their particular predilections.

Man shall be judged by his Peers and Equals. For when the Fate of a Citizen is in Question, all Prejudices arising from the Difference of Rank or Fortune should be stifled; because they ought to have no Influence between the Judges and the Parties accused.

To exclude all jurors who would be in the slightest way affected by the prospect of the death penalty would be to deprive the defendant of the impartial jury to which he or she is entitled under the law.

Neither the king nor any servant of his shall themselves cause a lawsuit to be begun, or hush up one that has been brought before them by some other man.

The state of law is equal for all people. It cannot depend on electoral politics.

We should trust judges to be independent, investigators to be independent.

Remember the attorney general is not a member of the president's staff. He's the attorney general of the United States. He's there to represent all of us, and it means all the laws have to be enforced fairly. And you can't bring your individual prejudices in there.

The judge's authority depends upon the assumption that he speaks with the mouth of others. That is to say, the momentum of his utterances must be greater than any which his personal reputation and character can command, if it is to do the work assigned to it - if it is to stand against the passionate resentments arising out of the interests he must frustrate - for while a judge must discover some composition with the dominant trends of his times, he must preserve his authority by cloaking himself in the majesty of an overshadowing past.

The only relevant side is that of the law and the Constitution. We do great injury to the integrity of the court system when we start speaking of sides and stop devoting ourselves to the pursuit of impartial justice.

I do not allow myself to be moved by anything except the law. If there has been a mistake in the law, or if I think there has beenperjury or injustice, I will weigh the petition most carefully, but I do not permit myself to be moved by more harrowing details, and I try to treat each case as if I was reviewing it or hearing it for the first time from the bench.

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

Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia should be commended for acknowledging that his views are so strong that - should the Pledge case reach the Supreme Court - he wouldn't be able to maintain the requisite impartiality.

Judicial abuse occurs when judges substitute their own political views for the law.

… it [is] a judge's duty to decide, not to debate.

I would never impose my own personal convictions upon the law.

The reasonableness of the agency of the national courts in cases in which the state tribunals cannot be supposed to be impartial, speaks for itself. No man ought certainly to be a judge in his own cause, or in any cause in respect to which he has the least interest or bias.

Keeping politics out of the courtroom is a goal every state aspires to achieve.

If only people who are ideologically committed to a particular outcome argued to the courts, the law would be worse off.

A jury is more apt to be unbiased and independent than a court, but they very seldom stand up against strong public clamor. Judges naturally believe the defendant is guilty.

The problem is not that the Supreme Court is just conservative, the problem is that it is corrupt.

No judicial nomination should answer any question that is designed to reveal how the nominee will rule on any issue that could come before the court.