Neil Gorsuch

facebook_page
twitter_page

Last quote by Neil Gorsuch

If anyone is suggesting that I like a result where an autistic child happens to lose, that's a heartbreaking accusation to me. Heartbreaking. I was wrong because I was bound by circuit precedent, and I'm sorry.
NEW Mar 24 2017
Neil Gorsuch has most recently been quoted in an article called Father of Autistic Son Says Neil Gorsuch’s View ‘Threatened’ His Son’s Education. Neil Gorsuch said, “If anyone is suggesting that I like a result where an autistic child happens to lose, that's a heartbreaking accusation to me. Heartbreaking. I was wrong because I was bound by circuit precedent, and I'm sorry.”. Neil Gorsuch has been quoted a grand total of 101 times in 54 articles.
Automatically powered byStoryzy

Neil Gorsuch quotes

No one is looking to return us to horse and buggy days. I was wrong senator, I was wrong because I was bound by circuit court precedent. And I'm sorry. Oh, now we're talking. I have declined to offer any promises, hints or previews of how I'd resolve any case. You better believe I expect judicial decrees to be obeyed.

Senator, as the book explains, the Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the book explains that. That's the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, senator, yes.

Congress has ample authority and opportunity to pass campaign-finance laws.

I care about the law, I care deeply about the law and an independent judiciary and following the rules of the law. And that's the commitment I can make to you, I can't promise you more and I can't guarantee you any less.

You better believe I expect judicial decrees to be obeyed. I was wrong senator, I was wrong because I was bound by circuit court precedent. And I'm sorry.

To suggest I have some animus against children, senator, would be a mistake.

I was bound by circuit precedent. Fine, I will follow the law. To suggest I have some animus against children.

Senator, I can't comment on specific cases, and I can't get involved in politics. I've said what I think I ethically may in this area. I have no difficulty ruling against or for any party, other than based on what the law and facts in the particular case require. I'm heartened by the support I have received from people who recognise that there's no such thing as a Republican judge or a Democratic judge. We just have judges in this country.

State officials no less than private visitors could be liable for trespass when entering without the homeowner's consent.

It would be grossly improper of a judge to do that and a violation of the separation of powers and judicial independence if someone sitting at this table, in order to get confirmed, had to make promises or commitments about how they'd rule in a case that's currently pending and likely to make its way to the Supreme Court.

When I sit on the bench and someone comes to argue before me, I treat each one of them equally. They don't come as rich or poor, big guy or little guy. They come as a person and I put my ego aside when I put on that robe and I open my mind and I open my heart and I listen.

I do ask for a show of hands, How many of you have had questions like this asked in the employment environment, an inappropriate question about your family planning? And I am shocked every year, senator, how many young women raise their hand. It's disturbing to me.

When anyone criticises the honesty, integrity, the motives of a federal judge, I find that disheartening, I find that demoralising, because I know the truth. Roe vs Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed, and all of the other factors that go into analysing precedent have to be considered. A good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any other. Once a case is settled, that adds to the determinacy of the law.

I have lots of concerns as a person and a citizen. And I am now a judge and my personal views have nothing to do with how I rule on cases.

I'd be delighted to actually clear this up. Because the first I heard of this was the night before my confirmation hearing.

I'd agree with you it's highly inappropriate. We talk about the pros and the cons in a Socratic dialogue so that they can think through themselves how they might answer that very difficult question. I do ask for a show of hands, not about the question you asked but about the following question, and I ask it of everybody: how many of you have had questions like this asked of you in your employment environment, inappropriate questions? And I am shocked every year, Senator, how many young women raise their hands. It is disturbing to me.

I think the best evidence is what I've written. I've written or joined over 6 million words as a federal appellate judge. I've written a couple of books. I've been a lawyer and a judge for 25 or 30 years. That's my record, and I guess I'd ask you respectfully to look at my credentials and my record.

I'm not here to answer for Mr. King or for Professor Finnis. I've had a lot of professors… and I didn't agree with everything they said.

No man is above the law. A good judge doesn't give a whit about politics or the political implications of his or her decision, (and) decides where the law takes him or her fearlessly. I would have walked out the door. I have offered no promises on how I'd rule in any case to anyone. And I don't think it's appropriate for a judge to do so, no matter who's doing the asking.

When anyone criticizes the honesty and integrity or the motives of a federal judge, I find that disheartening, I find that demoralizing.

Senator, I would have walked out the door. That's not what judges do. Anyone is anyone.

Senator, I've tried to treat each case and each person as a person – not a 'this kind of person,' not a 'that kind of person' – a person. Equal justice under law. It is a radical promise in the history of mankind.

Senator, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that single-sex marriage is protected by the Constitution.

I'm not going to say anything here that would give anybody any idea how I'd rule in any case like that that could come before the Supreme Court or my court at the 10th Circuit. It would be grossly improper of a judge to do that. It would be a violation of the separation of powers and judicial independence if someone sitting at this table, in order to get confirmed, had to make promises or commitments about how they'd rule in a case that's currently pending and likely to make its way to the Supreme Court. No man is above the law.

People asked [White] what his judicial philosophy was, I'll give the same answer. I decide cases. It's a pretty good philosophy for a judge. I listen to the arguments made. I read the briefs that are put to me. I listen to my colleagues carefully and I listen to the lawyers.

No man is above the law. My personal views, I tell you, Mr. Chairman, are over here. I leave those at home.

There's a lot about the confirmation process today that I regret. A lot. A lot. No man is above the law. A lot of people say a lot of silly things. I am not going to say anything here that would give anybody any idea how I'd rule on any case. I think that's the beginning of the end of the independent judiciary.

It's a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. Senator, no man is above the law. That doesn't happen everywhere else around the world. We take it for granted in this country. It's a remarkable blessing from our forefathers. And it is a daunting prospect as a judge to have to carry that baton.

That's a softball. I have no difficulty ruling against any party based on what the law and the facts of the particular case requires. There is no such thing as a Democratic or Republican judge.

A good judge doesn't give a wit about politics or the political implications of his or her decision, besides where the law takes him or her, fearlessly.

Justice Scalia was a mentor, too. He reminded us that words matter, that the judge's job is to follow the words that are in the law, not replace them with those that aren't. The justice fished with the enthusiasm with a New Yorker. He thought the harder you slap the line on the water, somehow the more the fish love it.

We're now like David Foster Wallace's fish. We're surrounded by the rule of law, it's in the fabric of our lives.

The importance of an independent judiciary. Under our Constitution, it is for this body, the people's representatives, to make new laws. For the executive to ensure those laws are faithfully enforced. And for neutral and independent judges to apply the law in the people's disputes. These days we sometimes hear judges cynically described as politicians in robes, seeking to enforce their own politics rather than striving to apply the law impartially. If I thought that were true I'd hang up the robe. But I just don't think that's what a life in the law is about.

In the West we listen to one another respectfully, we tolerate and cherish different points of view, and we seek consensus whenever we can. My law clerks tell me that 97 percent of the 2,700 cases I've decided were decided unanimously. And that I have been in the majority 99 percent of the time.

When a favored candidate is voted down for lack of sufficient political sympathy to those in control, grudges are held for years, and retaliation is guaranteed.

It might be fair to ask whether TransAm's decision was a wise or kind one. But it's not our job to answer questions like that.

A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge, stretching for results he prefers rather than those the law demands.

Surely Congress could and would continue to pass statutes for executive agencies to enforce. And just as surely agencies could and would continue to offer guidance on how they intend to enforce those statutes. The only difference would be that courts would then fulfill their duty to exercise their independent judgment about what the law is.

It is undisputed that when the governor announced his decision to discontinue funding he contemporaneously explained that his decision came in direct response to the videos. And it is undisputed, too, that the governor was free as a matter of law to suspend the funding in question for this reason.

The trucker in this case wasn't fired for refusing to operate his vehicle. There's simply no law anyone has pointed us to giving employees the right to operate their vehicles in ways their employers forbid. Maybe the [Labor] department would like such a law, maybe someday Congress will adorn our federal statute books with such a law. But it isn't there yet. And it isn't our job to write one – or to allow the department to write one in Congress's place.

Our duty to follow precedent sometimes requires us to make mistakes. Unfortunately, this is that sort of case.

Helped coordinate litigation efforts involving a number of national security matters – including the Darby photos litigation and FOIA case seeking a poll of Guantanamo Bay detainees.

The administration's victory is not well known but its significance shouldn't be understated.

I was extraordinarily impressed. You and your colleagues have developed standards and imposed a degree of professionalism that the nation can be proud of, and being able to see first hand all that you have managed to accomplish with such a difficult and sensitive mission makes my job of helping explain and defend it before the courts all the easier.

There's an elephant in the room with us today. We have studiously attempted to work our way around it and even left it unremarked. But the fact is... executive bureaucracies (are permitted) to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers' design. Maybe the time has come to face the behemoth.

The towering judges that have served in this particular seat on the Supreme Court, including Antonin Scalia and Robert Jackson, are much in my mind at this moment.

Amazingly, radically different people from radically different backgrounds and locales share an incredible hegemony here on Morningside Heights in their radical politics. As the world and other colleges change with the times, as hair styles come and go, as career trends ebb and flow, Columbia remains entranced with the same slogans, styles, and sympathies it has had since the 60s.

Every year as the weather begins to improve, our campus activists seem to feel the primordial urge to organize rallies and create clever (and not-so-clever) chants to outdo the last year's protests. In their own peculiar way, these protests seem to be the rites of spring at Columbia.

This kind of discrimination just doesn't fit in with Freedom of Opportunity and Democracy. Plain and simple. Unless it's prepared to hire applicants regardless of race, sex, class, religion, or sexual preference, the military should be denied the use of Columbia facilities to recruit.

It is the role of judges to apply, not alter, the work of the people's representatives.

It is the rule of judges to apply, not alter, the work of the people's representatives. A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge.

Standing here in a house of history, I'm acutely aware of my own imperfections and pledge that if I am confirmed, I will do all my powers permit to be a faithful servant of the Constitution of laws of this great country.

No quotes...
More Neil Gorsuch quotes

Quotes by Neil Gorsuch

<
>
facebook_page
twitter_page