John Roberts Judge Quotations

allows the judge to incorporate his or her own personal preferences, cloak them with the authority of precedent -- because they're finding precedent in foreign law -- and use that to determine the meaning of the Constitution.

I have been fortunate for the past two years to serve on a court in which all of the judges ... put aside those (political) ties and those views and become judges all focused on the same mission of vindicating the rule of law. And if you look at the decisions of the D.C. Circuit, you'll see that we're almost always unanimous. We almost always come out the same way and to the extent there are disagreements, they don't shape up along political lines,

Judges wear black robes because it doesn't matter who they are as individuals. That's not going to shape their decision. It's their understanding of the law that will shape their decision.

Judges do not have a commission to solve society's problems, ... their role, while important, is limited.

Judges are umpires. I will remember it is my job to call balls and strikes, and not pitch or bat.

Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules. They apply them.

Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them,

Judge Roberts, the legal automaton, as opposed to Judge Roberts, the man.

It is not a process under which senators get to say, 'I want you to rule this way and this way and this way, and if you'll tell me that you'll rule this way and this way and this way, I'll vote for you, ... That's not a bargaining process. Judges are not politicians. They cannot promise to do certain things in exchange for votes.

Like most people, I resist the labels. I have told people, when pressed, that I prefer to be known as a modest judge. And, to me, that means some of the things that you talked about in those other labels. It means an appreciation that the role of the judge is limited; the judge is to decide the cases before them; they're not to legislate; they're not to execute the laws.

Late this August, MALDEF announced its opposition to Judge Roberts.

Judges have to have the humility to recognize that they operate within a system of precedent, shaped by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath.

He did what a judge should do, not give any indication on any specific case or how he might look at that because if he does, he's not going to be the impartial arbiter a judge should be,

I'm not standing for election and it is contrary to the role of judges in our society to say that this judge should go on the bench because this is his or her position and those are the positions they're going to apply,

Umpires don't make the rules. They apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role.

If we're relying on a German judge about what our Constitution means, no president accountable to the people appointed that judge and no Senate accountable to the people confirmed that judge. And yet, he's playing a role in shaping the law that binds the people in this country.

If we're relying on a decision from a German judge about what our Constitution means, no president accountable to the people appointed that judge and no Senate accountable to the people confirmed that judge. And yet he's playing a role in shaping the law that binds the people in this country. I think that's a concern that has to be addressed.

The Framers were not the sort of people, having fought a revolution to get the right of self-government, to sit down and say, 'Let's take all the difficult issues before us and let's have the judges decide them.'

An important function of the Supreme Court is to provide guidance, .. As a lower court judge, I appreciate clear guidance from the Supreme Court.

No, I don't think there is, ... You look outside yourself, to other sources. This is the basis for judges (to) wear black robes, because it doesn't matter who they are as individuals . . . it's their understanding of the law that will shape the decision.

No, I don't think there is. Sometimes it's hard to give meaning to a constitutional term in a particular case. But you don't look to your own values and beliefs. You look outside yourself to other sources. This is the basis for ? you know, judges wear black robes because it doesn't matter who they are as individuals. That's not going to shape their decision. It's their understanding of the law that will shape their decision.

I know there are people of strongly held views on both sides of the issue ... And I know that the responsibility of a judge confronting this issue is to decide the case according to the rule of law consistent with the precedents, not to take sides in the dispute as a matter of policy, but to decide it according to the law.

I come before the committee with no agenda. I have no platform. Judges are not politicians who can promise to do certain things in exchange for votes,

I have no platform. Judges are not politicians who can promise to do certain things in exchange for votes, ... Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them.