A Quote by Cass Sunstein
There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him.
Related Quotes
There are people who oppose a federal Constitutional amendment because they think that the law of family should be made by the states. I can see a legitimate argument there. I think it's mistaken, however, because the federal government, through the decisions of life-tenured federal judges, has already taken over that area.
I don't think the question is if should we have a shield law. I think the question is what kind of shield law we should have. Yes, I'd like to see a federal shield law, but if and only if it provides genuine safeguards and doesn't green-light prosecutors and judges and litigants from going after the press and getting things to which they should not be entitled. It's not a simple kind of litmus test.
I think the federal government should be doing only what the Constitution says it should be. We don't have authority under the federal Constitution to have a big federal criminal justice system.
Classrooms cannot and should not be coerced into adopting federal academic standards. That's not just my belief; it's federal law.
Even if it takes changing the law, the president should honor the commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they got.
What the framers of the Constitution tried to achieve when they wrote that Constitution back in the 1700s was an independent federal judiciary. They wanted federal judges to be appointed by the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate, and to serve for good behavior.
When it appears as though the governors of the Federal Reserve believe that the end of the rate increases is near, that's very good news for investors. A lack of ambiguity from the Federal Reserve is always a little bit of a shocker.
I don't believe the federal government should be snooping into American citizens' cell phones without a warrant issued by a federal judge. You cannot give the federal government extraordinary powers to eavesdrop without a warrant. It's simply un-American.
This is a unique legal loophole in the U.S.: If a non-native comes on a reservation and commits any crime, the non-native should be prosecuted by a federal court. Tribal law can arrest and hold someone for a year, but tribal law cannot prosecute non-natives. So since the federal courts are so overloaded, some of the cases get tossed out.
The Federal Trade Commission is supposed to enforce U.S. anti-trust law. Instead, the federal agency routinely violates U.S. anti-trust law by permitting monopoly concentrations of business interests.
As long as judges tinker with the Constitution to 'do what the people want,' instead of what the document actually commands, politicians who pick and confirm new federal judges will naturally want only those who agree with them politically.
If people want to change the law, they should vote so that we can appoint pro-life judges. I believe the law should be changed.
But there's no reason why we should abdicate our foundational principles because certain groups don't believe in them. You know, no majority should surrender its deeply held beliefs to those who don't believe in anything.
I do not agree with the use of 'signing statements' to effectively act as a line-item veto, except when the President believes a law or a provision within a law is unconstitutional.In general, if a President signs a law, they are committing themselves to enforcing it. If they don't believe it should become a law, they should veto it.
As someone that's interacted with the federal judiciary a time or two, I will tell you that I have a unique perspective on federal judges.
The powers of government exercised locally derive from a federal law authorizing government by consent in local affairs only, unless those affairs are otherwise governed by federal law.
Related Authors
Alan Dershowitz Quotes
American
Lawyer
Cenk Uygur Quotes
Turkish
Lawyer
Clarence Darrow Quotes
American
Lawyer
Elizabeth Edwards Quotes
American
Lawyer
Elliott Abrams Quotes
American
Lawyer
James Carville Quotes
American
Lawyer
John Kennedy Quotes
American
Lawyer
Judy Sheindlin Quotes
American
Lawyer
Prashant Bhushan Quotes
Indian
Lawyer
Ralph Nader Quotes
American
Lawyer
Robert Green Ingersoll Quotes
American
Lawyer
Robin S. Sharma Quotes
Canadian
Lawyer
Robin Sharma Quotes
Canadian
Lawyer
Valerie Jarrett Quotes
American
Lawyer
William Jennings Bryan Quotes
American
Lawyer
Zephyr Teachout Quotes
American
Lawyer