A Quote by Prashant Bhushan
The Supreme Court's non-transparent attitude on the disclosure of assets is in line with the judiciary's steadfast refusal to allow any transparency in the matter of appointment of judges, or for that matter, in the judiciary as a whole.
Quote Topics
Quote Author
Related Quotes
The appointment of judges to the higher judiciary cannot be the sole domain of a few members of the higher judiciary. This turf must be shared.
Just as judges have enormous stake in the appointment of judicial officers in the higher judiciary, the government has an equal stake. Since both of us have stakes in the appointment of members of the higher judiciary, the consultation of both of them is absolutely necessary. The government must have a say.
The Supreme Court is about the Constitution. It is about constitutionality. It is about the law. At its bear simplest, it's about the law. It is not about the Democrat Party agenda. Because that's what it's become. The whole judiciary has become that because that's the kind of people they have put on various courts as judges, and every liberal justice on the Supreme Court is a social justice warrior first and a judge of the law second. And if they get one more, then they will have effectively corrupted the Supreme Court.
Normally, the secrecy and lack of transparency surrounding the appointment of judges of the higher judiciary ensures that citizens come to know of these appointments only after the Presidential notification, announcing the appointments, is issued.
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.
I am very proud of our Supreme Court - it is one of the best worldwide. Nevertheless, since the 1990s, we have seen a certain imbalance in the relationship between the judiciary, the parliament and the government. The Supreme Court behaved in an activist way. We have to debate the degree to which such Supreme Court activism is appropriate.
Separation of power says the judiciary committee is supposed to confirm qualified judges and then what the Supreme Court does, that is their function, not my function.
How we decide the vexed issue of the method of selection of judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts would determine the future of our democracy and the rule of law in the country. We are faced with the twin problem of selecting the best judges and also ensuring that the judiciary would be insulated from executive interference.
The federal judiciary is unlike the other branches of government. And once confirmed, a federal judge serves for life. And there's no court above the Supreme Court.
For the first half of this century, High Court judges have been cautious to the point of timidity in expressing any criticism of governmental action; the independence of the judiciary has been of a decidedly subordinate character.
It is inexplicable as to why the Chief Justice or other judges of the Supreme Court are unwilling to disclose their assets, particularly when they had themselves directed even candidates contesting elections to publicly declare their assets.
The Tax Court is independent, and its neutrality is not clouded by prosecuting duties. Its procedures assure fair hearings. Its deliberations are evidenced by careful opinions. All guides to judgment available to judges are habitually consulted and respected. It has established a tradition of freedom from bias and pressures. It deals with a subject that is highly specialized and so complex as to be the despair of judges. It is relatively better staffed for its task than is the judiciary.
If you believe that through putting the judiciary under political control you can make it a better judiciary, you are wrong, and you are violating your own obligations under European treaties.
We need a Supreme Court justice who will restore fairness, balance, and independence to the highest level of the judiciary. Based on his record, I do not believe Gorsuch would be that kind of justice.
The sword of contempt has kept the judiciary away from searching public scrutiny, particularly within the mainstream media. The judiciary is obviously happy to live with this situation as well.
How to check these unconstitutional invasions of rights by the Federal judiciary? Not by impeachment in the first instance, but by a strong protestation of both houses of Congress that such and such doctrines advanced by the Supreme Court are contrary to the Constitution; and if afterwards they relapse into the same heresies, impeach and set the whole adrift. For what was the government divided into three branches, but that each should watch over the others and oppose their usurpations?
Related Authors
Alan Dershowitz Quotes
American
Lawyer
Cass Sunstein 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
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