Neil Gorsuch

facebook_page
twitter_page

Last quote by Neil Gorsuch

It seems like, linguistically, we have to do some somersaults to get where you want to go.feedback
share this quote
Apr 26 2017
Neil Gorsuch has most recently been quoted in an article called With Executions in Balance, Supreme Court Grapples Over Role of Experts. Neil Gorsuch said, “Where's the stopping point? Is it just psychiatry? Would we also have to apply the same rule in other kinds of medicine, perhaps? Forensic science?”. Neil Gorsuch has been quoted a grand total of 119 times in 69 articles.
Automatically powered by Storyzy
Take our quote verification challenge and find out !

Neil Gorsuch quotes

When all is said and done, a student offered an educational program providing 'merely more than de minimis' (underlining added by writer) progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all. For children with disabilities, receiving instruction that aims so low would be tantamount to 'sitting idly…awaiting the time when they were old enough to 'drop out.feedback

To proceed to fill this stolen seat will damage the court for decades to come.feedback

That corporations have the same rights as people.feedback

Respectfully, Senator, I think we're splitting hairs. I really do because I have told you quite clearly that both of those precedents are in the realm of 50 years old, that have serious reliance interests around them, that they've been repeatedly reaffirmed. And Senator, what I've tried to do with respect to all precedents is treat them equally, in my presentation before you. Because as a judge, I come at them equally. In my line of work, a precedent is a heavy, a weighty thing. And it deserves respect as precedent, as part of our history. And ….feedback

And he has cavalierly referred to contraceptive use as 'the wrongdoing of others'. No doubt, the Greens' religious convictions are contestable. Some may even find the Greens' beliefs offensive. But no one disputes that they are sincerely held religious beliefs.feedback

Well, let me try one more – this way, Senator, for you. Maybe this will help. The way I look at it is, I don't come at these issues fresh. It's not whether I agree or disagree with any particular precedent. That would be an act of hubris. Because a precedent, once it's decided, it carries far more weight than what I personally think.feedback

As the Greens explain in their complaint, the ACA's mandate requires them to violate their religious faith by forcing them to lend an impermissible degree of assistance to conduct their religion teaches to be gravely wrong. … No one disputes that the Greens' religion teaches them that the use of such drugs or devices is gravely wrong.feedback

All of us face the problem of complicity. All of us must answer for ourselves whether and to what degree we are willing to be involved in the wrongdoing of others. For some, religion provides an essential source of guidance both about what constitutes wrongful conduct and the degree to which those who assist others in committing wrongful conduct themselves bear moral culpability. The Green family members are among those who seek guidance from their faith on these questions. Understanding that is the key to understanding this case.feedback

That the First Amendment would permit public officials to sue the media under any standard less demanding than actual malice? That's been the law of the land for, gosh, 50, 60 years. I could point you to a case in which I've applied it and I think might give you what you're looking for, senator, in terms of comfort about how I apply it: Bustos v. A&E Network.feedback

I would like to cheer you up about the judicial process.feedback

I can't get involved in politics. If you ever go to Philadelphia, you've got to go to Independence Hall and the Constitution Center and see how it all happened.feedback

You take a poor little kid, you find a sheep and you attach the one to the other and see how long they can hold off.feedback

If I did make a bunch of campaign promises here, what's that mean to the independent judiciary? It's the anchor of the law, it's the starting place for a judge. If I was wrong, senator, I was wrong because I was bound by circuit precedent and I'm sorry. Putting on a robe reminds us judges that it's time to lose our egos and open our minds. No one remembers who John Hancock was but they know that that's his signature, because he wrote his name so bigly, big and boldly.feedback

Senator, I appreciate the invitation. But I know the other side has their views of this, and your side has your views of it. That by definition is politics.feedback

I don't appreciate ... when people characterize me, as I'm sure you don't appreciate it when people characterize you. I like to speak for myself. I am a judge. I am my own man.feedback

After all, what under the sun, at least at some level of generality, doesn't relate to 'health and safety?feedback

We've all been through it with family. My heart goes out to you, it does, and I've been there with my dad, OK? And others.feedback

All human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.feedback

The point of a precedent – I'm trying to be as helpful to you as I can be here, Senator – is that it represents collective wisdom. And to say I agree or I disagree with a precedent of the United States Supreme Court, as a judge, that's an act of hubris that to me just doesn't feel like a judicial function.feedback

I appreciate the advice I've gotten, thoughtful advice on a number of issues from senators across the spectrum. You're thoughtful people who care deeply about this country, and you care deeply about the judiciary, and I appreciate that.feedback

If I were to start telling you which are my favorite precedents or which are my least favorite precedents, or view it in that fashion, I would be tipping my hand and suggesting to litigants I already made up my mind about their cases. That's not a fair judge.feedback

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.feedback

Clearly this is the most monumental IDEA case decided by the high court in over 30 years.feedback

It matters not a whit that some of the drafters of the 14th Amendment were racists. Because they were. Or sexists, because they were. The law they drafted promises equal protection of the laws to all persons. That's what they wrote. Backward doesn't mean backwards.feedback

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.feedback

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.feedback

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

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.feedback

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

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.feedback

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

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.feedback

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.feedback

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.feedback

We can talk mutton busting all day. No, Senator. Forty-two.feedback

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.feedback

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.feedback

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.feedback

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

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.feedback

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.feedback

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.feedback

Those are not my words and I would never have said them.feedback

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

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

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.feedback

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

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.feedback

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.feedback

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

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.feedback

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.feedback

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.feedback

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.feedback

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.feedback

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.feedback

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.feedback

I am but the scrivener looking for language that might please everybody.feedback

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.feedback

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.feedback

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.feedback

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.feedback

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.feedback

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.feedback

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

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.feedback

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.feedback

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

But as far as we know, all fossil fuel producers in the area served by the grid will be hurt equally and all renewable energy producers in the area will be helped equally. If there's any disproportionate adverse effect felt by out-of-state producers or any disproportionate advantage enjoyed by in-state producers, it hasn't been explained to this court. But that's when things took an interesting turn. Trying their hand at a little judicial jiu-jitsu, the plaintiffs sought to turn the defendants' victory against them.feedback

Injustice not only in the needless financial expense and the waste of judicial resources, but injustice in the human costs associated with trying to piece together faded memories and long since filed away evidence, the emotional ordeal parties and witnesses must endure in any retrial, the waste of the work already performed by a diligent and properly instructed jury, and the waiting – the waiting everyone would have to endure for a final result in a case where everyone's already waited too long.feedback

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.feedback

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.feedback

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.feedback

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.feedback

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.feedback

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

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.feedback

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.feedback

No quotes...
More Neil Gorsuch quotes
|< <
> >|

Quotes by Neil Gorsuch

<
>
facebook_page
twitter_page
This webpage has been created by a robot: errors and absent quotes cannot be totally avoided
 
Feedback×

Quote :

Mistake :

Comments :