After the Supreme Court recent ruling with regard to Obamacare, I started to wonder about the Justices of the Supreme Court. Who are these people . . . not, their educational or professional backgrounds. That information is readily available on the Supreme Court website. But who are they, really?
To clarify the basic job description: the Supreme Court is empowered by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution (exact wording at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii/). The Court consists of the Chief Justice and a number of Associate Justices determined by Congress. That number is currently eight. The President nominates the Justices, and appointments are confirmed by the Senate.
Briefly, the Court functions as the interpreter of the Constitution with the authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in its judgment, conflict with the Constitution. The Supreme Court also has jurisdiction in cases arising out of disputes between States or between a State and the Federal Government. The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to deciding specific cases. Judicial Review assures individual rights and maintains a "living Constitution" whose provisions are continually applied to new situations. When the Court rules on a Constitutional issue, its decision can be altered only by a Constitutional amendment or by a new Court ruling. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.
Again, though, who are these nine individuals that have such final authority and must be all things to all of “The People”? I thought that we might learn more about who they are from their own words, so here are a few direct quotes.
John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice – Took his seat in 2005; nominated by President George W. Bush.
What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?
(Note: this was regarding gun possession.)
The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop
discriminating on the basis of race.
I have complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to
determine when recusal is warranted. They are jurists of
exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness
have been examined through a rigorous appointment and
confirmation process.
If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy's
going to win in court before me, ... But if the Constitution says that
the big guy should win, well, then the big guy's going to win.
If particular precedents have proven to be unworkable, they don't lead to predictable results, they're difficult to apply, that's one factor supporting reconsideration.
Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice – Took his seat in 1986; nominated by President Ronald Reagan.
Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death
sentence properly reached.
There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes
insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us
all.
A law can be both economic folly and constitutional.
Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death
sentence properly reached.
There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes
insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us
all.
A law can be both economic folly and constitutional.
What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?
Our task is to clarify the law -- not to muddy the waters, and not to exact overcompliance by intimidation. The States and the Federal Government are entitled to know before they act the standard to which they will be held, rather than be compelled to guess about the outcome of Supreme Court peek-a-boo.
Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice – Took his seat in 1988; nominated by President Ronald Reagan.
The case for freedom, the case for our constitutional principles the case for our heritage has to be made anew in each generation. The work of freedom is never done.
When Congress alters the federal balance, it must carefully consider the consequences of doing so.
In seeking rational explanations for irrational acts, an explanation
becomes the excuse.
The federal sentencing guidelines should be revised downward. By contrast to the guidelines, I can accept neither the necessity nor the wisdom of federal mandatory minimum sentences. In too many cases, mandatory minimum sentences are unwise and unjust.
In seeking rational explanations for irrational acts, an explanation
becomes the excuse.
The federal sentencing guidelines should be revised downward. By contrast to the guidelines, I can accept neither the necessity nor the wisdom of federal mandatory minimum sentences. In too many cases, mandatory minimum sentences are unwise and unjust.
We can't just throw away our Constitution, can we?
Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice – Took his seat in 1991; nominated by President George H. W. Bush.
The job of a judge is to figure out what the law says, not what he wants it to say. There is a difference between the role of a judge and that of a policy maker.... Judging requires a certain impartiality.
Good manners will open doors that the best education cannot.
Today, now, it is time to move forward, a time to look for what is good in others, what is good in our country. It is time to see what we have in common, what we have to share as human beings and citizens.
There is some misunderstanding. We do not look any place. We do not recruit. We are passive. We look at what comes to us.
Today, now, it is time to move forward, a time to look for what is good in others, what is good in our country. It is time to see what we have in common, what we have to share as human beings and citizens.
All respect for the office of the presidency aside, I assumed that the obvious and unadulterated decline of freedom and constitutional sovereignty, not to mention the efforts to curb the power of judicial review, spoke for itself.
When police or prosecutors conceal significant exculpatory or impeaching material, we hold, it is ordinarily incumbent on the state to set the record straight.
But the greatest dissents do become court opinions and gradually over time their views become the dominant view.
Everyone on this court assumed that assisted suicide was a matter for
the states.
We live in an age in which the fundamental principles to which we subscribe -- liberty, equality and justice for all -- are encountering extraordinary challenges. But it is also an age in which we can join hands with others who hold to those principles and face similar challenges.
Everyone on this court assumed that assisted suicide was a matter for
the states.
We live in an age in which the fundamental principles to which we subscribe -- liberty, equality and justice for all -- are encountering extraordinary challenges. But it is also an age in which we can join hands with others who hold to those principles and face similar challenges.
Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice – Took his seat in 1994; nominated by President William Clinton.
The court has found no single mechanical formula that can accurately draw the constitutional line in every case.
But the wonderful thing about human memory is, it forgets, ... And so you always have another chance. People don't remember after a time. The computer remembers forever. There it is: picture recorded.
Speed in reaching a final decision may help create legal certainty.
Consequences are highly relevant, ... Not just any consequences but consequences in light of a constitutional value. . . . You can be wooden and mechanical, and the price you'll pay is a law that won't fulfill the basic principles of the Constitution, which is to help people live together in a democratic society.
This [Texas] display has stood apparently uncontested for nearly two generations. That experience helps us understand that as a practical matter of degree this display is unlikely to prove divisive.
Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr., Associate Justice – Took his seat in 2006; nominated by President George W. Bush.
There's been general agreement ... to support the authority of the president to take military action on his own in the case of an emergency, when there is not time for Congress to react.
Private religious speech can't be discriminated against. It has to be treated equally with secular speech.
If 'settled' means that it can't be re-examined, that's one thing. If 'settled' means that it is a precedent that is entitled to respect then it is a precedent that is protected.
One of the most solemn responsibilities of the president--and it's set out expressly in the Constitution--is that the president is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, and that means the Constitution. It means statutes. It means treaties. It means all of the laws of the United States.
I think that the legitimacy of the court would be undermined in any case if the court made a decision based on its perception of public opinion.
I firmly believe in the rule of law as the foundation for all of our basic rights.
I wouldn't approach the issue of judging in the way the president does. Judges can't rely on what's in their heart. They don't determine the law. Congress makes the law. The job of a judge is to apply the law.
It's not the heart that compels conclusions in cases, it's the law.
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.
I wouldn't approach the issue of judging in the way the president does. Judges can't rely on what's in their heart. They don't determine the law. Congress makes the law. The job of a judge is to apply the law.
It's not the heart that compels conclusions in cases, it's the law.
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.
We apply law to facts. We don't apply feelings to facts.
Elena Kagan, Associate Justice – Took her seat in 2010; nominated by President Barack Obama.
I have no regrets. I don't believe in looking back. What I am proudest of? Working really hard... and achieving as much as I could.
I've led a school whose faculty and students examine and discuss and debate every aspect of our law and legal system. And what I've learned most is that no one has a monopoly on truth or wisdom. I've learned that we make progress by listening to each other, across every apparent political or ideological divide.
The Supreme Court, of course, has the responsibility of ensuring that our government never oversteps its proper bounds or violates the rights of individuals. But the Court must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people.
I've led a school whose faculty and students examine and discuss and debate every aspect of our law and legal system. And what I've learned most is that no one has a monopoly on truth or wisdom. I've learned that we make progress by listening to each other, across every apparent political or ideological divide.
The Supreme Court, of course, has the responsibility of ensuring that our government never oversteps its proper bounds or violates the rights of individuals. But the Court must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people.
What my political views or my constitutional views are just doesn't matter.
I think that if there are positions that you can't argue... then the responsibility is probably to resign. If one's own conscience is opposed to the requirements and responsibilities of the job, then it's time to leave the job.
I think that if there are positions that you can't argue... then the responsibility is probably to resign. If one's own conscience is opposed to the requirements and responsibilities of the job, then it's time to leave the job.
Even though, ideally, the Justices are supposed to be apolitical, the reality is that we have been able to pretty much determine a Justice’s political leanings and sympathies at the very least by the party of the President making the appointment. I am not so sure that is any longer a given.
Take what Elena Kagan said, nominated by President Obama, and therefore assumed, by past popular standards at least, to have Democrat leanings:
I do not espouse the unitarian position. President Clinton's assertion of directive authority over administration, more than President Reagan's assertion of a general supervisory authority, raises serious constitutional questions.
On the other side, we all know that Chief Justice Roberts, nominated by President Bush and therefore again of assumed Republican leanings, joined the liberal wing in upholding Obamacare.
Most decisions made by the Supreme Court have ramifications that affect the lives of millions for generations. How does one, how can one, consistently maintain the levels of moral responsibility and integrity required for such a job?
If presented with the opportunity, I would ask each member of the Supreme Court “Since they are completely two different concepts and practices, how do you reconcile the moral responsibility of justice with the written precepts of the law?”
Until the next time, LLAP!
References:
