Stephen Breyer Quotations

Ultimately, the question of campaign contributions will be decided by the public.

Would I want to be judged by whether or not I was popular? Wouldn't I want to be judged on what was true as opposed to what might be popular?

We developed a system of protecting human liberty such that judges and independent judges are a necessary part of that protection.

I would guess my law clerks could meet (that standard) every day,

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.

He says, 'I've seen 50 million paintings, I know magenta,'

he joked later, while being photographed in his garden, ''my job is to look stiff without being stiff.

I think it shows that if you have one group of people doing it, you'll get another group of people doing it.

I thought that that was an effort to inject a popular element, a democratic element into the selection of a person who, once he is selected and confirmed, is beyond electoral control.

Remember, 100 or 150 years ago, you could walk down the street, your neighbors might see you, they'd watch what you do,

Well it's fairly important that everyone have a lawyer and so we have a system that you can't convict a person without a lawyer, even if he's guilty.

Well, just that there would be somebody in the office and the voters - it was more or less an understanding in the entire community, as long as that person was doing a good job on the merits, nobody was going to run against him.

Virginia is now pursuing an execution schedule that leaves less time for argument and for court consideration than the court's rules provide for ordinary cases.

Breyer said, ''that certainly looks to text, certainly looks to history, certainly looks to tradition and precedent -- but that also emphasizes heavily the purpose of this particular provision and the consequences as viewed in terms of the purposes, is more likely to get at what this law is about, what area of human life it is seeking to affect and how. That's what I think the essence of law is.

Speed in reaching a final decision may help create legal certainty,

Once you're in a system where there are contributions being made, it's certainly not the case that everybody expects something back.

At least there's a political input, but when you put on the robe, at that point the politics is over.

At the same time, we do live in a democracy. And for that reason I think it is appropriate to have some element of public control.

I mean those people who are interested in good government will certainly contribute in order to make certain there's some counter-balance to those whose interests in good government is less.

I have to, of course, describe the views of those who disagree with my approach.

a hallmark of American justice in the last 30 years.

And in that confirmation process, I sat for 17 hours in front of a senate judiciary committee.

The court has found no single mechanical formula that can accurately draw the constitutional line in every case,

And if a judge is going to be criticized for letting off a person and it turns out that person was innocent, that would be a pretty bad criticism.

But once the person is selected, at that point that person is independent.

Judges are appointed often through the political process

And the problem is once you get into this campaign business and begin to have a lot of money, then the person on the bench begins to think - what's going to happen if I decide the case this way or that way?

We are selected, but I grew up in California and in San Francisco and there was a system of electing judges.

Nobody wants a judge to be subject to the political whim of the moment.

Every citizen has to figure out what kind of government he or she wants.

We can speak about the institution, but ultimately the bar is the group that both is in touch with the public on the one hand and understands the judicial institution on the other

Independence means you decide according to the law and the facts.

It doesn't help to fight crime to put people in prison who are innocent.

I mean, there are lots of people who get married who can't have children. To take a state that does allow adoption and say-there, what is the justification for saying no gay marriage? Certainly not the one you said, is it?

It's important to every American that the law protect his or her basic liberty

There are loads of countries that have nice written constitutions like ours. But there aren't loads of countries where they're followed.

Independence doesn't mean you decide the way you want.

I think whether you are a judge on my court or whether you are a judge on a court of appeals or any court, and lawyers too - and if you're interested in law yourself, you'll be in the same situation - you have a text that isn't clear. If the text is clear, you follow the text. If the text isn't clear, you have to work out what it means. And that requires context.

You will read in the newspaper more often about federal courts, but the law that affects people, the trials that affect human beings are by and large in the state courts

Active liberty is particularly at risk when law restricts speech directly related to the shaping of public opinion, for example, speech that takes place in areas related to politics and policy-making by elected officials. That special risk justifies especially strong pro-speech judicial presumptions. It also justifies careful review whenever the speech in question seeks to shape public opinion, particularly if that opinion in turn will affect the political process and the kind of society in which we live.

People have to be educated and they have to stick to it. If people lose that respect, an awful lot is lost

The best clue to what a person thinks is what he says.

You can have many different selection systems, but the bottom line has to be a system that, once the judge takes office that judge will feel that he or she is to decide the case without reference to the popular thing or the popular will of the moment

This understanding, underlying constitutional interpretation since the New Deal, reflects the Constitution's demands for structural flexibility sufficient to adapt substantive laws and institutions to rapidly changing social, economic, and technological conditions.

To threaten the institution is to threaten fair administration of justice and protection of liberty.

The advantages? Exercise, no parking problems, gas prices, it's fun. An automobile is expensive. You have to find a place to park and it's not fun. So why not ride a bicycle? I recommend it.