Top 1200 Judicial Review Quotes & Sayings - Page 5
Explore popular Judicial Review quotes.
Last updated on November 8, 2024.
I have almost never been compared to male writers in any review. All women.
Amnesty International continues to report that extra judicial tortures and murders continue. This is not democracy that we are exporting to Mexico, and this is certainly not what the Mexican workers signed up for.
The judicial system of Rwanda is not subordinate to France or France's interests.
I was certainly naïve about the judicial system in America. There's a lot of people who are in prison who are innocent. The system is very flawed.
The truth of the matter is there is significant debate among judicial scholars today as to whether or not we've gone off on the wrong path with regard to Supreme Court decisions.
As the 'critic of color,' I'm frequently asked to review Indian and Pakistani writers.
The solution to voters potentially being misled by a judicial candidate's political speech is more speech - not government censorship.
I was a journalist and wrote about filmmakers, but I didn't review movies per se.
A bad review is even less important than whether it is raining in Patagonia.
Whenever he composes a critical review, I have been told, he gets an enormous erection.
Congress has a responsibility to review research paid for by hard-working American taxpayers.
I was so long writing my review that I never got around to reading the book.
We need to review treaties to make them reflect our national interest.
We should evaluate judges and judicial nominees based on the general process for applying the law to any legal disputes, not on the specific result in a particular case or dispute.
A person loves to review his own mind. That is the use of a diary, or journal.
The stopping of the Judicial courts, had been blended, in the minds of some people, with the redress of grievances considered only as a mode of awakening the attention of the legislature.
Nothing ruins your day more than getting a bad review.
Glen Cove. [Referring to Glenn Close on a movie review television show]
It is hard to see Judge Roberts as a judicial activist who would place ideological purity or a particular agenda above or ahead the need for thoughtful legal reasoning.
I think in the end officials in each country's judicial system will do what they believe is right because if they do something bad to somebody it's on their conscience for the rest of their lives.
Not every defeat of authority is a gain for individual freedom, nor every judicial rescue of a convict a victory for liberty.
Crimes against women are growing day by day. Despite this, the mindset of our leaders, politicians, or judicial system is not changing.
I think that a lot of journalists don't really listen to music before they review it.
Peer review is fine, as long as you're making incremental improvements to a technology.
Every philosophical review ought to be a philosophy of reviews at the same time.
I have never had a bad review off a good-looking person.
The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.
Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important that the law as written.
[The current governing judicial philosophy is:] If you want something passionately enough, it is guaranteed by the Constitution. No need to fiddle around gathering votes from recalcitrant citizens.
In the political context fair means somebody that will vote for the unions or for the business. It can't mean that in the judicial context or we're in real trouble.
I personally think that we should be extremely reluctant to use a recall mechanism for an unpopular decision simply because of the message it sends about judicial independence.
It is profoundly troubling when you have Supreme Court justices not following their judicial oath. And taking the role of policy makers and legislators, rather than being judges.
As I review my life, I feel I must have missed the point, either then or now.
Trump is not the victim of the judicial system; he is or has been the defendant in 3,500 lawsuits - that's not the mark of a victim but rather a perpetrator.
No matter how badly senators want to know things, judicial nominees are limited in what they may discuss. That limitation is real. And it comes from the very nature of what judges do.
The due administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government, I have considered the first arrangement of the judicial department as essential to the happiness of the country, and to the stability of its political system.
I have friends who will critique me much harder than any review.
I've never yet read a review of one of my own books that I couldn't have written much better myself.
As members of Congress, we have to pursue the Congressional Review Act legislation as soon as possible.
I don't want to review books any more. It cuts in too much on my reading.
When Congress exercises the powers delegated to it by the Constitution, it may impose affirmative obligations on executive and judicial officers of state and local governments as well as ordinary citizens.
Judicial judgment must take deep account of the day before yesterday in order that yesterday may not paralyze today.
The judge is forced for the most part to reach his audience through the medium of the press whose reporting of judicial decisions is all too often inaccurate and superficial.
A critic can only review the book he has read, not the one which the writer wrote.
Review your description of the world, what it is to be a woman, and see how inadequate it is.
I can get very depressed by a review that is unfair, unreasonable, and totally destructive.
When the spotless ermine of the judicial robe fell on John Jay, it touched nothing less spotless than itself.
We've played on 'Saturday Night Live' and got not even a Rolling Stone review.
No one can duplicate the confidence that RSA offers after 20 years of cryptanalytic review.
There are laws about personal protection so it's rare to see a politician criticized. Normally, according to the law, there's a judicial problem with calling people by their real names.
The biggest review of taxation ever undertaken in this country, is now dead in the water.
If I get a bad review, I don't take it personally because everyone is entitled to their opinion.
The fundamental problem is that there's no credibility in the judicial system, which is a system that's been completely politicized. This is retaliation and selective repression.
It is the union of independence and dependence of these branches - legislative, executive and judicial - and of the governmental functions possessed by each of them, that constitutes the marvellous genius of this unrivalled document.
A week or so ago I did a two hour book review in Baltimore Maryland.
On mobile, what are the core apps? It's basically messaging, mapping and review data.
No matter how badly senators want to know things, judicial nominees are limited in what they may discuss. That limitation is real, and it comes from the very nature of what judges do.
I read every review online, and I want to respond to those, but I resist the urge to do that.
I had to spend my entire childhood in the Altensam dungeon like an inmate doing time for no comprehensible reason, for a crime he can't remember committing, a judicial error probably.
I read every single review, because I love film criticism and I'm interested.
