In my first week as a U.S. senator, I had the privilege of participating in the Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
The Democrats’ drive to defeat Neil Gorsuch is the latest battle in a 50-year war for control of the Supreme Court – a war that began with a conspiracy against Richard Nixon by Chief Justice Earl Warren, Justice Abe Fortas and Lyndon Johnson.
It’s been 80 years since the Senate has confirmed a Supreme Court nominee who was nominated during an election. And particularly when the court hangs in the balance, it makes no sense whatsoever to give Barack Obama the power to jam through a judge in the final election year.
Conservatives complain that the Supreme Court is too liberal. Liberals complain that it’s too conservative. Both charges are inaccurate: in reality the Court is a careful political actor that arguably represents the center of gravity of American politics better than most politicians do.
The Supreme Court must never be viewed as a partisan institution.
‘2016’ is based on an experiment: what if you let Obama do it himself? That experiment is necessarily limited because I’m not factoring in a Republican House, a Supreme Court or the tug of public opinion.
The judiciary wields enormous power but is utterly mysterious to most Americans. People know more about ‘American Idol’ judges than Supreme Court judges. Done right, social media is a high-octane tool to boost civic awareness.
For me, there can be no higher public service than serving as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court.
One of the reasons this election is so important is because the Supreme Court hangs in the balance. We need to overturn that terrible Supreme Court decision, Citizens United, and then reform our whole campaign finance system.
It urges policy makers and the Supreme Court to make the mistake of curing what could prove to be an isolated problem by disarming the government of its principal weapon to stop future terrorist attacks.
It’s time to review what damage the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has done to our political system.
Many well-meaning intelligent people have argued since the May 17, 1954, decision of the United States Supreme Court outlawing segregation in the public schools that communication between the races has broken down.
If the need for comprehensive campaign finance reform was not already clear, the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United permitting unlimited corporate and union spending in campaigns certainly made it so in 2010.
I am the leading federal judge in the country – the leader in the entire country of promoting women law clerks to get Supreme Court clerkships.
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.
Well, I believe that when you are confirming a United States Supreme Court Justice, that it really isn’t Democratic or Republican; it’s American.
Bush’s choice of Dick Cheney as his running mate is clear confirmation of the policies he would promote and the nominations he would make to an already closely divided U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court needs jurists, not politicians.
The Supreme Court is not elected, and it is therefore not a proper arbiter of social policy.
All my life, I’ve had a strong belief that I want to judge myself and others on their contribution, not their sex. I don’t think much of it when employers want applause for hiring women or minorities. Whether for the Supreme Court or McDonald’s, if you hire the best person, you’ll have a diverse workplace.
I think it was in 1971 or 1974, the Supreme Court ruled marriage is not a subject that the federal government can exercise jurisdiction over, including the courts. To do that, we would need an amendment to the Constitution.
The regulator banned cryptocurrency… then there was an order from the Supreme Court. So, in the absence of any strong law, it was very important for us to come out with a comprehensive law-one for the private digital currency and second for the government for its digital form of currency, or the virtual currency.
When a nominee for the Supreme Court, one of only nine lifetime appointments, makes an overtly brazen racist comment about tens of millions of American citizens, we don’t need lectures. What we need to do is to confront her with what she said and what it says about her.
The kind of corruption the media talk about, the kind the Supreme Court was concerned about, involves the putative sale of votes in exchange for campaign contributions.
If torture is going to be administered as a last resort in the ticking-bomb case, to save enormous numbers of lives, it ought to be done openly, with accountability, with approval by the president of the United States or by a Supreme Court justice.
Shortly after assuming his duties at the White House, Trump hit a home-run by selecting conservative Neil Gorsuch to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.
I have strong differences with Mr. Trump on a woman’s right to choose and what kind of justices belong on the Supreme Court.
The Obama administration came into Utah and said, ‘We’re not going to listen to what the U.S. Supreme Court said. ‘We, the federal government, are going to recognize marriages in the state of Utah and Utah state law explicitly does not recognize as marriage,’ and that was really, in my view, an abuse of power.
The Supreme Court must strike down the government’s illegal spying program as a violation of our Fourth Amendment right to privacy.
As the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court case has shown us, separate is not always equal.
As the law minister, I had ensured that the government’s right to natural resources was protected. The result was evident. The honourable Supreme Court gave the landmark decision in RIL vs RNRL case that the government is the owner of all natural resources.
It’s terribly important that we extend the promise of equality that the Supreme Court and that the district court articulated in the DOMA case and in the Perry case to all Americans in all 50 states.
The Frist fairness rule guarantees up-or-down votes for every circuit court or Supreme Court nomination, regardless of which party controls the Senate or the White House.
