A Quote by Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. — © Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office.
Judge [Gonzalo] Curiel has not said anything, and in fact, cannot say anything. But I would even broaden it out to, you know, judges who are victims of attack ads in say state Supreme Court elections can't talk back. Judges are really barred from commenting on this kind of huge public hue and cry.
You will vote for first choice candidate whether or not you think he'll win. But I'm saying you may find yourself for a candidate, a middling candidate, a candidate you don't think very well of, really. And you really don't like to avoid a catastrophe. Well, maybe that's a good thing. You can argue that back and forth.
The truth is, that, even with the most secure tenure of office, during good behavior, the danger is not, that the judges will be too firm in resisting public opinion, and in defence of private rights or public liberties; but, that they will be ready to yield themselves to the passions, and politics, and prejudices of the day.
In England the judges should have independence to protect the people against the crown. Here the judges should not be independent of the people, but be appointed for not more than seven years. The people would always re-elect the good judges.
When Obama took office, Republican appointees controlled ten of the thirteen circuit courts of appeals; Democratic appointees now constitute a majority in nine circuits. Because federal judges have life tenure, nearly all of Obama's judges will continue serving well after he leaves office.
It is often constructive to meet with a candidate for a particular office, but I believe what is most important is the candidate's track record.
The whole purpose of me seeking public office is to make the world a better place. When I put my name on the ballot, I obviously think that I'm the best candidate to do that.
In the public interest, therefore, it is better that we lose the services of the exceptions who are good Judges after they are seventy and avoid the presence on the Bench of men who are not able to keep up with the work, or to perform it satisfactorily.
A Green Party candidate would be very different from a Democrat or Republican and should be heard. I was the candidate first time a Green or any progressive third party has ever been in a national televised debate. I was in five of them. And the response from the public was overwhelming.
That judges of important causes should hold office for life is a questionable thing, for the mind grows old as well as the body.
The president made clear when he was a candidate for this office and when he took this office, that unfortunately prior to his taking office, because of the focus on Iraq, and the U.S. efforts there, that the original war, if you will, in Afghanistan had been neglected, the strategy there was unclear, and that it was not properly resourced.
Judges should decide legal disputes. Judges should not make law.
I don't think anyone should pick a candidate for any office based solely on gender. That would be, I believe, a mistake.
One of the litmus tests for judicial conservatism is the idea of judicial restraint - that courts should give substantial deference to the decisions of the political process. When Congress and the president enact a law, conservatives generally say, judges should avoid 'legislating from the bench.'
Rudolph Giuliani will be the first Secretary of State whose last public office was mayor, the most thoroughly domestic public office that we have.
Judges rule on the basis of law, not public opinion, and they should be totally indifferent to pressures of the times.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!