Quotes of All Topics . Occasions . Authors
Having people that really reflect the spectrum of American experiences is important to have on the Supreme Court.
The fairest and most democratic process in terms of Supreme Court nominees is let the American people have a voice.
We have never had a president of the United States or a nominee of a major party who was a Supreme Court law clerk.
Over the course of 19 years on the Supreme Court, I learned some lessons about the Constitution of the United States.
Over time, I think, and with further appointments to the Supreme Court, I think that the Roe v. Wade opinion will fall.
Citizens United fought to defend our right to free speech - and won a great victory in the United States Supreme Court.
I was covering the Supreme Court when it decided Gideon v. Wainright, and the case has always had special meaning for me.
The Supreme Court has increasingly come down on the side of big corporations instead of workers and middle-class families.
Installing an activist liberal majority on the Supreme Court will put religious liberties at risk for generations to come.
I am very pleased with President Trump's selection of Judge Neil Gorsuch as his first appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court.
I think the Supreme Court does have the authority, which is not used, to declare a blanket right for all people, all adults.
I'm a graduate of Princeton, and I just want to say you don't have to go to an Ivy League school to be on the Supreme Court.
I have strong differences with Mr. Trump on a woman's right to choose and what kind of justices belong on the Supreme Court.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and the public is entitled to know what the legal views of a Supreme Court candidate are.
Stability in law - particularly constitutional law - is critically important; the Supreme Court would do well to remember that.
Donald Trump has shouted 'hoax' hundreds of times, about everything from climate change to Supreme Court rulings to impeachment.
What Mr. Obama wants in a nominee isn't really 'empathy' and 'understanding.' He wants a liberal, activist Supreme Court justice.
What five members of the Supreme Court say the law is may be something vastly different from what Congress intended the law to be.
What many people, I think, don't really understand is how much their rights really turn on the interpretation of the Supreme Court.
I used to buy into a former Supreme Court justice's argument that you can't scream fire in a crowded theater. Well, I think you can.
Just as the Supreme Court has said that women have the right to choose whether or not to be parents, men should also have that right.
The Senate has a constitutional responsibility to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court, and I take that responsibility very seriously.
It is absurd to suggest a president whose party controls the Senate should jointly decline to fill a vacant Supreme Court seat - ever.
Bullying wasn't okay in elementary school and it isn't okay now, especially when it comes in the form of a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
We've got a deeply flawed political system with an insane overreaching extremist element, with a Supreme Court that is completely loony.
The nation will be shaped for decades by decisions that are made by President Bush and the Senate about the future of the Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court rules that rent control is an unconstitutional taking of property, it would put all sorts of zoning rules in danger.
We want to bear witness today that we know the relation between corporate greed and what goes on too often in the Supreme Court decisions.
The Second Amendment does protect the right to people to possess weapons for self-defense in the home. That's what the Supreme Court said.
Unlike tennis matches, Supreme Court decisions are tiebreaker-free, meaning the lower-court ruling stands without any high-court guidance.
If it gets to the Supreme Court, I'll have the directors of every museum in the country as expert testimony that my work is legitimate art.
The Supreme Court overrules, distinguishes, and upholds prior precedents. Sometimes it ignores them. But it does not - cannot - 'defy' them.
It's time to review what damage the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has done to our political system.
It is not my responsibility to determine whether Mr. Kavanaugh deserves to sit on the Supreme Court. My responsibility is to tell the truth.
I actually had the opportunity to stand at the lectern in the Supreme Court and face the justices, which was really a powerful thing for me.
In my first week as a U.S. senator, I had the privilege of participating in the Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
Deciding not to decide is, of course, among the most important things done by the Supreme Court. It takes a lot of doing, but it can be done.
We have no prejudiced stand, nor are we aggressive on the Sabarimala issue. The government is duty-bound to implement the Supreme Court order.
In pursuing the cherished goal of gender justice, to mention one example, the Supreme Court of India has always been proactive and progressive.
In rendering its decision in our case, the Supreme Court equated money with speech because these days it takes the first to make yourself heard.
The citizens of Michigan elect the justices to resolve the complex disputes that reach the Supreme Court, and we must not shrink from that duty.
In 2012, the Supreme Court upheld President Obama's overreaching mandate that forces every American to purchase health insurance or face a fine.
I'm very upset that the Supreme Court ruled that citizens don't have standing to challenge the faith based initiatives on constitutional grounds.
The wonderful thing about being a New York Times columnist is that it's like a Supreme Court appointment - they're stuck with you for a long time.
When the Supreme Court moved to Washington in 1800, it was provided with no books, which probably accounts for the high quality of early opinions.
Until lawmakers can disentangle property taxes from public education, inequalities - perpetuated by the Supreme Court and Congress - will persist.
The president typically never does comment on anything involving the Supreme Court cases, Supreme Court ruling, or Supreme Court finding, typically.
Whatever your partisan affiliation, it is worth considering the overarching constitutional principles involved in any given Supreme Court precedent.
If the court is a political institution making important political decisions, then the public should debate the politics of Supreme Court decisions.
I am still doing my due diligence. A vote on a Supreme Court nominee is a lifetime appointment and when the court decides, it is the law of the land.