A Quote by Chuck Grassley

Nominees [to Supreme Court] shouldn't be expected to pre-commit to ruling on certain issues in a certain way. Nor should senators ask nominees to pledge to rule on issues in a particular way.
Because judges may not issue advisory opinions, judicial nominees may not do so either, especially on issues likely to come before the court. That rule has always been honored.
When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce, and the Senate becomes incapable of evaluating nominees or appropriately educating the public.
Senator, my answer is that the independence and integrity of the Supreme Court requires that nominees before this committee for a position on that court not forecast, give predictions, give hints, about how they might rule in cases that might come before the Supreme Court,.
When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce, and the Senate becomes incapable of either properly evaluating nominees or appropriately educating the public.
I believe strongly that we should have nominees to the United States Supreme Court based on their qualifications rather than any litmus test.
Supreme Court nominees should be individuals who not only understand, but truly respect the equal roles and responsibilities of different branches of government and our state governments.
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.
My Democratic colleagues should not forget that President Obama's Supreme Court nominees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were both given up or down votes by Republicans.
The fairest and most democratic process in terms of Supreme Court nominees is let the American people have a voice.
President Obama had two Supreme Court nominees in his first term. There was no filibuster against them.
I would love to get Chief Justice John Roberts for an interview. I think that would be fascinating, I think that Supreme Court nominees should do more interviews.
Supreme Court nominees should know without any doubt that their job is not to impose their own personal opinions of what is right and wrong, but to say what the law is, rather than what they personally think the law ought to be.
Supreme Court nominees should know that this exercise of judicial restraint is the key ingredient of being good judge, as the Constitution constrains judges every bit as much as it constrains we legislators, executives and citizens in their actions.
The essence of oligarchical rule is not father-to-son inheritance, but the persistence of a certain world-view and a certain way of life, imposed by the dead upon the living. A ruling group is a ruling group so long as it can nominate its successors. The Party is not concerned with perpetuating its blood but with perpetuating itself. Who wields power is not important, provided that the hierarchical structure remains always the same.
When President Donald Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve on the Supreme Court, I said that he deserved a fair hearing and a vote. I said this even though Senate Republicans filibustered dozens of President Obama's judicial nominees and then stopped President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick Garland.
A Supreme Court ruling is supposed to provide clarity to contentious legal issues, but in the case of reproductive rights, it was just the beginning of a long, heated, and grueling debate.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!