Quotes of All Topics . Occasions . Authors
Democracy demands that judges confine themselves to a narrow sphere of influence - that is why the late Alexander Bickel called the judiciary the 'Least Dangerous Branch.' In a world governed by a proper conception of their role, judges don't play at being legislators - they leave that job to our elected representatives.
Since when has the Congress become protector of judiciary? Do I have to remind how Indira Gandhi treat the judiciary when one verdict went against them? Rajeev Gandhi in 1988 almost brought the bill, and during that phase, how many cases were filed against the media? And their son and grandson is talking about press freedom.
'Empathy' is the latest code word for liberal activism, for treating the Constitution as malleable clay to be kneaded and molded in whatever form justices want. It represents an expansive view of the judiciary in which courts create policy that couldn't pass the legislative branch or, if it did, would generate voter backlash.
Yes, we have the judiciary, the Constitution, we're fighting racism on a daily basis, but these are all state efforts and are not the efforts of the individual. The individual has to commit to change, the individual has to look at the past and take accountability of the past; for the wound to heal we have to dress it together.
It would be a very good thing for all involved - the country, an independent judiciary, and the Left itself - if liberals take a page from David von Drehle and their own judges of the New Deal era, kick their addiction to constitutional litigation, and return to their New Deal roots of trying to win elections rather than lawsuits.
Democracy only has substance if there's the rule of law. That is, if people believe that the votes are going to be counted, and they are counted. If they believe that there's a judiciary out there that will make sense of things if there's some challenge. If there isn't rule of law, people will be afraid to vote the way they want to vote.
My father was on the Judiciary Committee all 18 years. He had a good personal relationship with Jim Eastland. They probably didn't agree on practically anything, or very little, from a public policy standpoint. But they were willing to work through that to see what they could get done just because they knew each other and liked each other.
The rule of law means that law and justice are upheld by an independent judiciary. The judgments of the European Court of Justice have to be respected by all. To undermine them, or to undermine the independence of national courts, is to strip citizens of their fundamental rights. The rule of law is not optional in the European Union. It is a must.
We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our property and our liberty and our property under the Constitution.
The judiciary in Burma is not independent. It's widely known, everybody knows that.
Indeed, public scrutiny is desirable for healthy functioning of judiciary itself.
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.
President Trump has selected qualified, conservative nominees to serve in the federal judiciary and his administration.
I believe that an independent and impartial judiciary is essential to our constitutional republic.
The framers of the Constitution were so clear in the federalist papers and elsewhere that they felt an independent judiciary was critical to the success of the nation.
Too many of us had to suffer at the hands of a judiciary so independent that it often acted independently of both the basic principles of jurisprudence and the very constitution it swore to uphold and protect.
What are we fighting the terrorists for if we ourselves do not even stand up for democracy - civil liberties and fundamental rights - which includes independence of 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.
President Trump is treating the judiciary the way he treats the media. But the harm created by these attacks could be far greater.
We've got an outstanding justice system. Our judiciary are respected around the world. It is a key part of what we are as a country. It's an area where there is a strong political consensus behind that and perhaps in an era of populism it's important that we preserve those qualities.
Every institution, including the judiciary has its share of black sheep and corrupt judges.
Appointments to the higher judiciary must be through transparent processes, which ensure that persons of impeccable integrity and high competence are appointed to these positions.
Not wanting to suffer criticism, the judiciary has used its power of contempt to stifle criticism.
The overreach of the judiciary can be attributed to, one, the inability of the executive to deliver; and two, the tendency to issue judicial pronouncements for national good. The second element is dangerous because that's the function of the government.
Independence of Judiciary means independence from Executive and Legislature, but not independence from accountability.
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.
Every Indian wants a strong and independent judiciary. Obviously if the courts get weakened, it weakens the republic and harms every citizen.
In order to keep the judiciary independent of the executive, the constitution provided impeachment as the only method for disciplining errant judges.
Those is power being largely corrupt, recognize that a non functional and corrupt judiciary will allow them to escape punishment even when they get caught.
The judiciary is the only institution in the country which remains totally unaccountable. There is no institution with disciplinary powers over the judiciary.
The judiciary is peopled by judges who are human, and being human, they are occasionally motivated by considerations other than an objective view of law and justice.
Bringing accountability to the judiciary must be preceded by frank public discussion and debate. Unfortunately that cannot get started with the threat of contempt looming over people.
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.
Having enjoyed enormous powers, including the power of contempt, without any accountability, the higher judiciary has over the years, trampled the toes of many persons and institutions, particularly the media.
The retention of the power to punish for contempt for acts of speech alone, which do not directly interfere with the administration of justice, has removed the last shred of accountability of the higher judiciary in the country.
It is a fundamental principle that every institution must be accountable to an authority which is independent of that institution. Yet somehow, the judiciary has propagated a view that the judiciary can only be accountable to itself.
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.
For any unbiased and realistic enquiry against judges, one needs a full time body, independent of the government as well as of the judiciary, with an investigative machinery under its control, through which it can get complaints investigated.
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.
Selecting about 100 judges of the higher judiciary every year in a rational and fair manner is an onerous task requiring a full-time and not an ex-officio body. An ex-officio body of sitting judges and ministers cannot devote the kind of time required for this job.
The main reasons for the growth and institutionalization of corruption are: a culture of secrecy with lack of transparency, and weak institutions for securing the accountability of public servants, such as the Vigilance bodies, the criminal investigative agencies and the judiciary.
Over the years, the judiciary has expanded its own powers by creative interpretations of the Constitution, particularly Article 21 which guarantees the right to life. This has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right to a healthy environment, to health, primary education, livelihood and shelter.
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.
Eventually, understanding the motivations of the terrorists and dealing with the injustices that pervade our society, and repairing the institutions of justice, particularly the police and the judiciary, will be a much more effective way of fighting terror, than laws which give more draconian powers to corrupt and insensitive police organisations.