A Quote by William Barr
Nationwide injunctions undermine the democratic process, depart from history and tradition, violate constitutional principles, and impede sound judicial administration, all at the cost of public confidence in our institutions and particularly in our courts as apolitical decision-makers dispassionately applying objective law.
Related Quotes
Let me be clear: Those who seek to undermine our democratic institutions, indiscriminately destroy our businesses and attack our law enforcement officers and fellow citizens are a threat to the homeland.
Appellate review is not a magic wand and we undermine public confidence in the judicial process when we make it look like it is.
Our religious freedoms are under constant attack from a variety of groups who seek to undermine our constitutional rights and threaten our founding principles.
As Americans, we can take enormous pride in the fact that courage has been inspired by our own struggle for freedom, by the tradition of democratic law secured by our forefathers and enshrined in our Constitution. It is a tradition that says all men are created equal under the law and that no one is above it.
The desire the law makers have in having only dispensary owners to control marijuana is part of the game our law makers play to create a bureau of specific business created that owes its allegiance to the political process and therefore will make sure that process continues.
But it is recognized that punishment for the abuse of the liberty accorded to the press is essential to the protection of the public, and that the common law rules that subject the libeler to responsibility for the public offense, as well as for the private injury, are not abolished by the protection extended in our constitutions. The law of criminal libel rests upon that secure foundation. There is also the conceded authority of courts to punish for contempt when publications directly tend to prevent the proper discharge of judicial functions.
Nationwide injunctions not only allow district courts to wield unprecedented power, they also allow district courts to wield it asymmetrically.
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.'
Judicial Watch has taken the lead nationwide in defending state voter ID laws and other commonsense election integrity measures, filing amicus briefs in the Supreme Court and in several circuit courts of appeal and trial courts.
In our system of democracy, our government works on a system of checks and balances. Instead of stripping power from the courts, I believe we should follow the process prescribed in our Constitution - consideration of a Constitutional amendment.
This wasn’t just an attack against the Boston Marathon... It was an attack against the American public and our democratic use of the streets. We have used our public roadways for annual parades, protest marches, presidential inaugurations, marathons, and all manner of other events. The roads belong to us, and their use represents an important part of our free and democratic tradition.
Our religious liberty was threatened by the Obama administration as part of the Obamacare law. I was in the courtroom when that law was, I think unjustly, held constitutional.
When political and business leaders tell the public - any public - 'We don't trust you to make the right decision' - they prejudice that electorate against the very proposals they want it to accept and undermine public confidence in themselves.
Our history tells us that public institutions evolve through a process of bargaining between the state and groups in society.
To be true to its constitutional role, the Supreme Court should refuse to be drawn into making public policy, and it should strike down legislation only when a clear constitutional violation exists. When judicial activists resort to various inventions and theories to impose their personal views on privacy and liberty, they jeopardize the legitimacy of the judiciary as an institution and undermine the role of the other branches of government.
If Americans loved judicial activism, liberals wouldn't be lying about what it is. Judicial activism means making up constitutional rights in order to strike down laws the justices don't like based on their personal preferences. It's not judicial activism to strike down laws because they violate the Constitution.
Related Authors
Andrew Yang Quotes
American
Public Servant
Ben Bernanke Quotes
American
Public Servant
David Frum Quotes
American
Public Servant
Elizabeth Warren Quotes
American
Public Servant
Henry Paulson Quotes
American
Public Servant
James Comey Quotes
American
Public Servant
Janet Reno Quotes
American
Public Servant
Janet Yellen Quotes
American
Public Servant
Karren Brady Quotes
British
Public Servant
Michael Hayden Quotes
American
Public Servant
Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf Quotes
Iraqi
Public Servant
Paula White Quotes
American
Public Servant
Samantha Power Quotes
Irish
Public Servant
Steve Bannon Quotes
American
Public Servant
Vivek Murthy Quotes
American
Public Servant
Wendy Kopp Quotes
American
Public Servant