Courts

"I had never before argued a Supreme Court case on my own. Since arguments in that court are thirty minutes in length per side, and since most of the time consumed in argument is taken up with responses to questions of the Court, Dean [Ringel] and I devoted most of our preparation to three overlapping issues, ones that have consumed my attention in every later Supreme Court argument as well. The first was jurisprudential in nature. What rule of law were we urging the Court to adopt? How would it apply in any future case? What would be its impact on First Amendment legal doctrine?"

"In my conception of it, the primary role of the Court is to decide cases. From the decision of cases, of course, some changes develop, but to try to create or substantially change civil or criminal procedure, for example, by judicial decision is the worst possible way to do it. The Supreme Court is simply not equipped to do that job properly."

"The first opinion the Court ever filed has a dissenting opinion. Dissent is a tradition of this Court... When someone is writing for the Court, he hopes to get eight others to agree with him, so many of the majority opinions are rather stultified."

"The Court's great power is its ability to educate, to provide moral leadership."

"Nine, nine... There have been nine men there for a long, long time, right? So why not nine women?"

""At the Supreme Court, those who know don’t talk, and those who talk don’t know,” Ginsburg was fond of saying."

"This Court is forever adding new stories to the temples of constitutional law, and the temples have a way of collapsing when one story too many is added."

"Civil liberties had their origin and must find their ultimate guaranty in the faith of the people. If that faith should be lost, five or nine men in Washington could not long supply its want."

"The court is the least abstract of institutions. It is nine men, nine very human men, participating in a process that can be impressive or disturbing, grave or funny. And contrary to the general impression, the process is more visible than most of what goes on in government."

"It is true that diminished legitimacy may be restored, but only slowly. Unlike the political branches, a Court thus weakened could not seek to regain its position with a new mandate from the voters, and even if the Court could somehow go to the polls, the loss of its principled character could not be retrieved by the casting of so many votes. Like the character of an individual, the legitimacy of the Court must be earned over time. So, indeed, must be the character of a Nation of people who aspire to live according to the rule of law. Their belief in themselves as such a people is not readily separable from their understanding of the Court invested with the authority to decide their constitutional cases and speak before all others for their constitutional ideals. If the Court's legitimacy should be undermined, then, so would the country be in its very ability to see itself through its constitutional ideals. The Court's concern with legitimacy is not for the sake of the Court but for the sake of the Nation to which it is responsible."

"For nearly 40 years, the Supreme Court has been evading the 14th Amendment's provision of "equal protection" of the law for all, in order to let government-imposed group preferences and quotas continue, under the name of "affirmative action." Equal rights under the law have been made to vanish by saying the magic word "diversity," whose sweeping benefits are simply assumed and proclaimed endlessly, rather than demonstrated."

"All general business corporation statues appear to date from well after 1800.. The Framers thus took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare. Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans they had in mind. The fact that corporations are different from human beings might seem to need no elaboration, except that the majority opinion almost completely elides it…. Unlike natural persons, corporations have ‘limited liability’ for their owners and managers, ‘perpetual life,’ separation of ownership and control, ‘and favorable treatment of the accumulation of assets….’ Unlike voters in U.S. elections, corporations may be foreign controlled. ...It might be added that corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their ‘personhood’ often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of ‘We the People’ by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."

"(TH: In Justice Stevens’ dissent in Citizens United, he pointed out that corporations in their modern form didn’t even exist when the Constitution was written in 1787 and got its first ten amendments in 1791, including the First which protects free speech)"

"In addition to this immediate drowning out of noncorporate voices, there may be deleterious effects that follow soon thereafter. Corporate ‘domination’ of electioneering can generate the impression that corporations dominate our democracy. When citizens turn on their televisions and radios before an election and hear only corporate electioneering, they may lose faith in their capacity, as citizens, to influence public policy. A Government captured by corporate interests, they may come to believe, will be neither responsive to their needs nor willing to give their views a fair hearing. The predictable result is cynicism and disenchantment: an increased perception that large spenders ‘call the tune’ and a reduced ‘willingness of voters to take part in democratic governance.’ To the extent that corporations are allowed to exert undue influence in electoral races, the speech of the eventual winners of those races may also be chilled. Politicians who fear that a certain corporation can make or break their reelection chances may be cowed into silence about that corporation. On a variety of levels, unregulated corporate electioneering might diminish the ability of citizens to ‘hold officials accountable to the people,’ and disserve the goal of a public debate that is ‘uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.’"

"After World War II] the Court started chipping away at the “separate but equal” doctrine, exposing as it went along the inequality of the practices sheltered by it. Then in 1954, the case of Brown v. Board of Education presented the basic question of whether a segregated public school system with equal physical facilities was constitutionally permissible under that doctrine. The Court held that the separation of the races in the public schools placed a badge of inferiority upon the minority group; that it was a denial of the constitutional right to equal protection of the laws; that the doctrine of separate but equal could have no application, and specifically disapproved Plessy v. Ferguson in that regard. The Court thus opened the door to all phases of civil rights, and in rapid succession applied the same reasoning to other instances of racial discrimination."

"Once in office, Ronald Reagan sought to nominate candidates to the federal judiciary who would roll back liberal judicial decisions and promote his favored constitutional values, which included opposition to abortion. Not entirely coincidentally, the 1984 Republican Party platform “applaud[ed] President Reagan’s fine record of judicial appointments, and … reaffirm[ed] [the party[’s] support for the appointment of judges at all levels of the judiciary who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.” By the time Justice Lewis Powell retired in 1987, the Supreme Court’s original seven-person majority in Roe had swindled to four Justices who supported abortion rights: William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun (the original author of Roe), and John Paul Stevens, who had replaced William O. Douglas in 1976. Reagan’s first Supreme Court nominee, Sandra Day O’Connor, replaced Potter Stewart in 1981. O’Connor strongly criticized Roe’s trimester framework in her 1983 dissent in City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health and argued that abortion restrictions should be tested by a more lenient standard: whether they imposed an “undue burden” on women’s ability to obtain abortions. In 1986, Reagan nominated William Rehnquist, one of the original dissenters in Roe, to become Chief Justice, replacing Warren Burger, and nominated Antonin Scalia, a vocal opponent of Roe, to fill Renquist’s position as Associate Justice. These three Justices joined Byron White, the other original dissenter in Roe. To replace Powell, Reagan nominated D.C. Circuit Judge Robert Bork, an outspoken critic of Roe who championed the jurisprudence of original intention. The choice of Bork appeared to provide the crucial fifth vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Bork nomination produced a national controversy, and ultimately the senate failed to confirm him. Pro-choice groups mobilized to help defeat the nomination. Eventually the Senate confirmed Reagan’s third nominee, Anthony Kennedy, a conservative circuit judge from California who was generally regarded as more moderate than Bork. In hindsight, the failure of the Bork nomination was a turning point in the constitutional struggles over abortion. It raised the stakes in succeeding Supreme Court nominations and showed that they could be bitter and politically costly to a president. Bork’s defeat also demonstrated that pro-choice forces had considerable muscle that could be harnessed in the political arena if the public thought that abortion rights were truly threatened. It gave notice that Republican politicians might pay more heavily than they had previously believed if they tried to overturn Roe."

"Roe’s fate seemed even bleaker when two of the Court’s most liberal Justices, William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, left the Court due to failing health. Brennan resigned on July 20, 1990, and was replaced by David Souter, a bookish jurist from New Hampshire about whom little was known when he was nominated. President George H.W. Bush, attempting to avoid a replay of the Bork nomination, hoped that Souter would be able to avoid a politically difficult confirmation battle. Thurgood Marshall, the great civil rights lawyer who had argued Brown v. Board of Education, announced his retirement on June 27, 1991. To replace him, President Bush nominated Clarence Thomas, a conservative African American judge on the D.C. Circuit. Thomas was widely believed to be hostile to Roe v. Wade but stated at his confirmation hearings that he had never debated it and had no personal opinion on the subject. The Thomas nomination was bitterly contested by senators who doubted Thomas’s qualifications and his commitment to civil rights and civil liberties, including the right to abortion. Matters were thrown into an uproad when Thomas was accused of sexual harassment by a former employee at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Anita Hill. After weeks of controversy, Thomas was finally confirmed by a 52-48 vote, the narrowest margin in Supreme Court history."

"I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. Okay, have a good day."

"Why would we cut off the national debate about this next justice? Why would we squelch the voice of the people? Why would we deny the voters a chance to weigh in on the make-up of the Supreme Court?"

"In an election year, we have a long tradition, that a lame-duck president doesn't get to jam a Supreme Court nominee through on the very end."

"I want you to use my words against me. If there is a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say, "Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination." And you could use my words against me and you'd be absolutely right."

"When an election is under way the American people are about to weigh in on who's going to be the president. And that's the person, whoever it may be, who ought to be making this appointment."

"We will move forward without delay and in deliberate fashion. We will process the president's nominee and I believe that we will confirm that nominee as well."

"I believe the right thing to do is for the Senate to take up this nomination and to confirm the nominee before election day."

"I will support President @realDonaldTrump in any effort to move forward regarding the recent vacancy created by the passing of Justice Ginsburg."

"The Senate has more than sufficient time to process a nomination. History and precedent make that perfectly clear."

"The exceptionally urgent need to reduce the risk of COVID-19 exposure for Medicare and Medicaid patients given the anticipated winter surge in infections tips the equities overwhelmingly in favor of a stay"

"Clarence doesn't discuss his work with me, and I don't involve him in my work"

"Supreme Court eras are often identified with their chief justices, as is true of the current period that began with Roberts nearly two decades ago. But the Court can be measured also by presidential influence. Certain presidents, such as Franklin D. Roosevelt, who appointed eight justices in his twelve years in office, had a disproportionate effect on the Court. Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon also stood out for their imprint. The Trump effect, especially in terms of the individuals chosen and the resulting shift in the balance of power, has been incomparable. He is gone from office and they are here for life."

"Every generation, while finding its own uses for the Court, has preserved the Court as a symbol of the need for limits and for continuity in a nation of novelties. The Supreme Court thus become the American political conscience, a kind of secular papacy, a new search in every generation for what the more large-minded and more foresighted of the Founders might have meant if they were alive. It is the Great Remembrancer of our foundations."

"There are limits to analyzing the reasoning of published Supreme Court opinions, to say nothing of drafts. Logic and syllogisms don’t carry us very far in the law."

"None of us are safe from the extreme anti-women and anti-L.G.B.T.Q. ideology that now dominates this court."

"Madison’s “harmonious system of mutual frustration,” as the historian Richard Hofstadter called it, survived in continuity through many changes. The constitutional debates of 1787–88 fed into the contests of political modernity, giving it new terms and new metaphors. The Constitution itself became a stake in the American version of the contest between liberalism and conservatism. Appointments to its legal guardian, the Supreme Court, were fought over in partisan terms by the White House and Senate. The justices decried the labels, which they said caricatured their work. For the bulk of legal disputes that reached them, the point was fair, but for the rarer but headline cases of deep political division and high constitutional controversy—slavery, business and labor, personal morals, institutional powers—the complaint missed the mark, as a historic record of reliable partisanship along liberal-left and conservative-right lines suggested."

"Decades ago, Justice Louis D. Brandeis declared that "the reason the public thinks so much of the Justices of the Supreme Court is that they are almost the only people in Washington who do their own work." Today, no knowledgeable observer of the court would make a similar claim. As late as 1940, most clerks acted primarily as secretaries. In some cases a clerk might contribute an important footnote to an opinion, but not until Justice Frank Murphy and Chief Justice Fred Vinson joined the court in the 1940s did clerks take the lead in writing opinions and sometimes determine a justice's vote. As the number of clerks increased from two to three and, finally, to four, so did their involvement in their justice's work."

"Conservatives on the Supreme Court have repeatedly gutted provisions of the 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), most famously in 2010 with their notorious Citizens United decision. With that stroke, over the loud objections of the four “liberals” on the Court, corporations were absolutely deemed as “persons” with full constitutional rights, and billionaires or corporations pouring massive amounts of money into campaign coffers was changed from “bribery and political corruption” to an exercise of the constitutionally-protected “right of free speech.”... Increasingly, because of the Supreme Court’s betrayal of American values, it’s become impossible for people... to rise from social worker to the United States Senate without big money behind them. Our media is absolutely unwilling to call this what even Andrew Jackson would have labeled it: political corruption. But that’s what it is and it’s eating away at our republic like a metastasized cancer... While the naked corruption of Sinema and Joe Manchin is a source of outrage for Democrats across America, what’s far more important is that it reveals how deep the rot of money in American politics has gone, thanks entirely to a corrupted Supreme Court."

"In Justice Stevens’ dissent in Citizens United, he pointed out that corporations in their modern form didn’t even exist when the Constitution was written in 1787 and got its first ten amendments in 1791, including the First which protects free speech.... Noting that corporations “inescapably structure the life of every citizen,” Stevens continued: “It might be added that corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their ‘personhood’ often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of ‘We the People’ by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.” Even worse than the short-term effect of a corporation’s dominating an election or a ballot initiative, Stevens said (as if he had a time machine to look at us now), was the fact that corporations corrupting politics would, inevitably, cause average working Americans — the 95 percent who make less than $100,000 a year — to conclude that their “democracy” is now rigged."

"Donald Trump is an astoundingly dangerous candidate for president. He is a pathological liar …"

"We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution -- not over it. In our courts we want a government of laws and not of men."

"Throughout American history, the Supreme Court, often derided as the least democratic branch of the federal government, has, paradoxically, best maintained its legitimacy when it has functioned as the most democratic branch—that is, when it has deferred to the constitutional views of Congress, the president, and the country as a whole. For all the invective initially generated by Brown v. Board of Education, which outlawed school segregation, the decision was supported by more than half of the country when it was handed down in 1954, a time when southern minorities were blocking Congress from enacting the civil-rights legislation that the public supported. Many of the most famous decisions by the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Courts similarly reflected the popular will: a survey of eighty-eight civil-rights and civil-liberties cases between 1953 and 1994 found that, in most instances, the Supreme Court was generally in sync with public opinion. When public opinion opposed a particular rights claim, so, by and large, did the Supreme Court."

"In the United States at the present day, the reverence which the Greeks gave to the oracles and the Middle Ages to the Pope is given to the Supreme Court. Those who have studied the working of the American Constitution know that the Supreme Court is part of the forces engaged in the protection of the plutocracy. But of the men who know this, some are on the side of the plutocracy, and therefore do nothing to weaken the traditional reverence for the Supreme court, while others are discredited in the eyes of the ordinary quiet citizens by being said to be subversive and Bolshevik."

"Leaks of any kind are rare at the Supreme Court, and Totenberg says there hasn't been such a massive breach in modern history. She called it a "bomb at the court" that undermines everything the body stands for internally and institutionally, including its members' trust in their law clerks and in each other. "No fully-formed draft opinion has been leaked to the press or outside the court," Totenberg says. "Once or twice there may have been leaks that say how is something going to turn out, or after-the-fact that somebody may have changed his or her mind. But this is a full-flown, Pentagon Papers-type compromise of the court's work.""

"And as I say to you, whenever you put a man on the Supreme Court, he ceases to be your friend, you can be sure of that."

"The Supreme Court is a clown show. The idea that these nine individuals carry incredible wisdom is being debunked in real time."

"This is the Court of Chancery, which has its decaying houses and its blighted lands in every shire, which has its worn-out lunatic in every madhouse and its dead in every churchyard, which has its ruined suitor with his slipshod heels and threadbare dress borrowing and begging through the round of every man's acquaintance, which gives to monied might the means abundantly of wearying out the right, which so exhausts finances, patience, courage, hope, so overthrows the brain and breaks the heart, that there is not an honourable man among its practitioners who would not give--who does not often give--the warning, "Suffer any wrong that can be done you rather than come here!""

"I hope the Chancery will not repeal an Act of Parliament. Waste in the house is waste in the curtilage; and waste in the hall is waste in the whole house."

"I do not think it is the business of the Court of Chancery to inquire into motives."

"Chancery is ordained to supply the law, and not to subvert the law."

"In Chancery, every particular case stands upon its own circumstances, and although the common law will not decree against the general rule of law, yet Chancery doth, so as the example introduce not a general mischief. Every matter, therefore, that happens inconsistent with the design of the legislator, or is contrary to natural justice, may find relief here. For no man can be obliged to anything contrary to the law of nature ; and indeed no man in his senses can be presumed willing to oblige another to it."

"It is surely desirable that the rules of this Court should be in accordance with the ordinary feelings of justice of mankind."

"It is not agreeable to any man to be a defendant to an adverse Chancery suit, and I should be very sorry to sanction any principle which might lead to an increase in the number of defendants, and to the multiplication of litigant parties."

"The Court of Chancery is not a Court of Record, and a Judge in Chancery is not the keeper of the records of his own Court."

"Born and bred, so to say, in Chancery, I have a strong leaning towards the rule of the Court of Chancery, of requiring full discovery."

"This Court is not a Court of penal jurisdiction. It compels restitution of property unconscientiously withheld; it gives full compensation for any loss or damage through failure of some equitable duty ; but it has no power of punishing any one."

"In the Court of Chancery, I think we are obliged to cut the knot as to the question of time, by naming some time."

"This Court is not, as I have often said, a Court of conscience, but a Court of Law."

"The cause why there is a Chancery is, for that men's actions are so divers and infinite, that it is impossible to make any general law, which may aptly meet with every particular act, and not fail in some circumstances."

"The Court of Chancery never decrees that shall be evidence, which in its nature is not evidence."

"For us to reverse the judgment of a Lord Chancellor would require a tremendous case—a case of a clear error."

"I may say I do not consider the decision of a Lord Chancellor is absolutely binding upon us, because every Lord Chancellor's decision was liable to be reheard not only by himself but by his successor, and there are known instances of it. When I was sitting with Lord Justice Mellish we did rehear decisions of Lord Chancellor Selborne. There is always this to be considered, that it is the decision, no doubt, of a superior Court of Appeal; but it is always qualified by this, that according to the old practice of the Court of Chancery it was liable to be reheard."

"I think the Lord Chancellor, wherever he is sitting and whatever cases he is trying, is still Lord Chancellor, and that his decision is binding on me."

"It is wrong to consider that courts are established for the benefit of the people. Those who want to perpetuate their power do so through the courts. If people were to settle their own quarrels, a third party would not be able to exercise any authority over them. Truly, men were less unmanly when they settled their disputes either by fighting or by asking their relatives to decide for them. They became more unmanly and cowardly when they resorted to the courts of law. It was certainly a sign of savagery when they settled their disputes by fighting. Is it any less so, if I ask a third party to decide between you and me? Surely, the decision of a third party is not always right. The parties alone know who is right. We, in our simplicity and ignorance, imagine that a stranger, by taking our money, gives us justice."

"Though I have been trained as a soldier, and participated in many battles, there never was a time when, in my opinion, some way could not be found to prevent the drawing of the sword. I look forward to an epoch when a court, recognized by all nations, will settle international differences, instead of keeping large standing armies as they do in Europe."

"Whenever it has been my ill fortune to be present in court during the hearing of a case about which I had some first-hand knowledge, I have been struck by the fact that no crude truth is allowed to penetrate within those august portals. The truth that gets into a law court is not the naked truth but the truth in court dress, with all its less decent portions concealed. I do not say that this applies to the trial of straightforward crimes, such as murder or theft, but it applies to all those into which an element of prejudice enters, such as political trials, or trials for obscenity. I believe that in this respect England is worse than America, for England has brought to perfection the almost invisible and half-conscious control of everything unpleasant by means of feelings of decency. If you wish to mention in a law court any unassimilable fact, you will find that it is contrary to the laws of evidence to do so, and that not only the judge and the opposing counsel but also counsel on your side will prevent the said fact from coming out."

"Christ says, "Do not resist evil." The sole object of courts of law is — to resist evil. Christ enjoins us to return good for evil. Courts of law return evil for evil. Christ says, "Make no distinction between the just and the unjust." Courts of law do nothing else. Christ says, "Forgive all. Forgive not once, not seven times, but forgive without end." "Love your enemies." "Do good to those who hate you." Courts of law do not forgive, but they punish; they do not do good, but evil, to those whom they call the enemies of society. So, the true sense of the doctrine is that Christ forbids all courts of law."

"Do not deny God."

"It was said by a very learned Judge, Lord Macclesfield, towards the beginning of this century that the most effectual way of removing land marks would be by innovating on the rules of evidence; and so I say. I have been in this profession more than forty years, and have practised both in Courts of law and equity; and if it had fallen to my lot to form a system of jurisprudence, whether or not I should have thought it advisable to establish two different Courts with different jurisdictions, and governed by different rules, it is not necessary to say. But, influenced as I am by certain prejudices that have become inveterate with those who comply with the systems they found established, I find that in these Courts proceeding by different rules a certain combined system of jurisprudence has been framed most beneficial to the people of this country, and which I hope I may be indulged in supposing has never yet been equalled in any other country on earth. Our Courts of law only consider legal rights: our Courts of equity have other rules, by which they sometimes supersede those legal rules, and in so doing they act most beneficially for the subject. We all know that, if the Courts of law were to take into their consideration all the jurisdiction belonging to Courts of equity, many bad consequences would ensue. To mention only the single instance of legacies being left to women who may have married inadvertently: if a Court of law could entertain an action for a legacy, the husband would recover it, and the wife might be left destitute: but if it be necessary in such a case to go into equity, that Court will not suffer the husband alone to reap the fruits of the legacy given to the wife; for one of its rules is that he who asks equity must do equity, and in such a case they will compel the husband to make a provision for the wife before they will suffer him to get the money. I exemplify the propriety of keeping the jurisdictions and rules of the different Courts distinct by one out of a multitude of cases that might be adduced. . . . One of the rules of a Court of equity is that they cannot decree against the oath of the party himself on the evidence of one witness alone without other circumstances: but when the point is doubtful, they send it to be tried at law, directing that the answer of the party shall be read on the trial; so they may order that a party shall not set up a legal term on the trial, or that the plaintiff himself shall be examined; and when the issue comes from a Court of equity with any of these directions the Courts of law comply with the terms on which it is so directed to be tried. By these means the ends of justice are attained, without making any of the stubborn rules of law stoop to what is supposed to be the substantial justice of each particular case; and it is wiser so to act than to leave it to the Judges of the law to relax from those certain and established rules by which they are sworn to decide."

"It is unnecessary to show what passes in England, a country as famed for justice, and other great qualifications, as any other country: justice is there administered in such a manner as to exalt it above the other countries of the earth. It is our duty to administer justice in such a way as to give satisfaction to all parties."

"It will make a greater heat in the city not to grant this (writ) than otherwise."

"So long as Courts of justice remain Courts of justice there must be decency maintained."

"Let us have no breaking of the peace in Court."

"An English Court cannot judge by the light of nature."

"Courts do not exist for the sake of discipline, but for the sake of deciding matters in controversy."

"I hope we are now past that time of day that humming and hissing shall be used in Courts of justice; but I would fain know that fellow that dare to hum or hiss while I sit here; I will assure him, be he who he will, I will lay him by the heels and make an example of him. Indeed, I knew the time when causes were to be carried according as the mobile hissed or hummed; and I do not question but they have as good a will to it now. Come, Mr. Ward, pray let us have none of your fragrancies, and fine rhetorical flowers, to take the people with."

"Pray let us have no laughing, it is not decent."

"The criminal suit is open to every one, the civil suit to every one showing an interest."

"The Court is to be guided by equity and good conscience, and the best evidence."

"It is not necessary in a Court of law to inquire into the modes of proceeding by which Courts of equity are guided."

"The Courts can take no notice of anything but what comes judicially before them."

"The Courts of law are not provided at the public expense, and were not intended by those who so provided them, for the settlement of any but differences which do arise in the ordinary course of business."

"I think Courts of justice must always act upon the theory of very great probability being sufficient."

"Every Court is the guardian of its own records, and master of its own practice."

"By common courtesy, credit is given to Courts which have pronounced the law, that they have proceeded legally."

"These Courts were very properly adapted to the customs, manners, genius and policy of a people upon their first settlement: but, like all other human jurisdictions, vary in the course and progress of time, as the Government and manners of a people take a different turn, and fall under different circumstances."

"In a community, the constitution of which provides for a legislator and a law, it is the concern of the legislator and of the laws given by him to ascertain the mediation through calculable and attainable rules and to prevent the terror of the direct and automatic enactment of values. That is a very complicated problem, indeed. One may understand why law-givers all along world history, from Lycurgus to Solon and Napoleon have been turned into mythical figures. In the highly industrialized nations of our times, with their provisions for the organization of the lives of the masses, the mediation would give rise to a new problem. Under the circumstances, there is no room for the law-giver, and so there is no substitute for him. At best, there is only a makeshift which sooner or later is turned into a scapegoat, due to the unthankful role it was given to play. A jurist who interferes, and wants to become the direct executor of values should know what he is doing. He must recall the origins and the structure of values and dare not treat lightly the problem of the tyranny of values and of the unmediated enactment of values. He must attain a clear understanding of the modern philosophy of values before he decides to become valuator, revaluator, upgrader of values. As a value-carrier and value-sensitive person, he must do that before he goes on to proclaim the positings of a subjective, as well as objective, rank-order of values in the form of pronouncements with the force of law."

""the conduct of government by a Prime Minister and Cabinet collectively responsible and accountable to Parliament lies at the heart of Westminster democracy"."

"The Palestinian foreign minister has called on the international criminal court to immediately open an investigation into alleged Israeli war crimes, crimes against humanity, and apartheid. Riyad al-Maliki met the ICC’s chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, at the tribunal on Tuesday in The Hague and referred the case, calling it an “important and historic step towards justice for the Palestinian people who continue to suffer ongoing, widespread and systematic crimes”. He said the move was “due to the intensity and the rate and the severity of the crimes against our people” including the targeting of “unarmed protestors in the Gaza Strip”...Bensouda said in April: “Violence against civilians – in a situation such as the one prevailing in Gaza – could constitute crimes... as could the use of civilian presence for the purpose of shielding military activities.” The ICC considers itself a court of last resort, authorised to take on cases when authorities are unable or unwilling to launch prosecutions."

"US national security adviser John Bolton announced... that the US will use "any means necessary" to protect its citizens and allies from prosecution by the International Criminal Court. "United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court""

"Today, I announce that following a thorough, independent and objective assessment of all reliable information available to my Office, the preliminary examination into the Situation in Palestine has concluded with the determination that all the statutory criteria under the Rome Statute for the opening of an investigation have been met. I am satisfied that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation into the situation in Palestine... In brief, I am satisfied that (i) war crimes have been or are being committed in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip ("Gaza")...; (ii) potential cases arising from the situation would be admissible; and (iii) there are no substantial reasons to believe that an investigation would not serve the interests of justice."

"The US has revoked the visa of the international criminal court’s chief prosecutor in response to her intention to investigate potential war crimes by US soldiers in Afghanistan. A statement from the office of Fatou Bensouda, a Gambian national, said she would continue to pursue her duties for the court, in The Hague, “without fear or favour” and that she would continue to travel to the US. She has not been restricted from visiting the UN headquarters in New York. The US state department does not provide details of individual visa cases but made clear it was implementing the threat last month from the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, to impose restrictions on any ICC staff who investigated US or allied personnel. The move marked a hardening of America’s policy of non-cooperation with the ICC, and a downgrading of the role of multilateralism."

"Bensouda’s office said she had an “independent and impartial mandate” under Rome Statute governing the ICC. “The prosecutor and her office will continue to undertake that statutory duty with utmost commitment and professionalism, without fear or favour,” it added. Bensouda makes regular trips to the UN in New York, where she gives briefings to the security council. The UN office is seen as covered by a form of diplomatic immunity... Bensouda asked ICC judges in November 2017 for authorisation to open an investigation into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan by the Taliban, Afghan government forces and international forces, including US troops. The investigation is also expected to examine CIA activity in detention centres in Afghanistan. The court has not yet decided whether to launch a full-blown investigation that would cover events after 2002."

"The Trump administration has barred International Criminal Court investigators from entering the United States. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced Friday that the U.S. will start denying visas to members of the ICC who may be investigating alleged war crimes by the U.S. military in Afghanistan. In September, national security adviser John Bolton threatened U.S. sanctions against ICC judges if they continued to investigate alleged war crimes committed by U.S. troops in Afghanistan."

"John Bolton, the national security adviser to the U.S. president, held a speech last September in which he wished death on the International Criminal Court... The American security adviser held his speech at a time when The Hague was planning preliminary investigations into American soldiers who had been accused of torturing people in Afghanistan. The American threats against international judges clearly show the new political climate. It is shocking."

"I, along with my Office, execute our mandate under the Rome Statute with utmost independence, objectivity, fairness and professional integrity. We will continue to meet our responsibilities as required by the Rome Statute without fear or favor."

"If the U.S. government had prosecuted Bush administration officials for their war crimes during the “war on terror,” the ICC would not now take jurisdiction. But after Barack Obama said, “Generally speaking, I’m more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards,” his administration refused to prosecute those implicated in the torture and willful killings of detainees during the Bush administration."

"Bensouda (the International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor since June 2012) found the alleged crimes by the CIA and U.S. military “were not the abuses of a few isolated individuals,” but were “part of approved interrogation techniques in an attempt to extract ‘actionable intelligence’ from detainees.” ... The Pretrial Chamber agreed with Bensouda that there were reasonable grounds to believe that, pursuant to a U.S. policy, members of the CIA had committed war crimes. They included torture and cruel treatment, and outrages upon personal dignity, as well as rape and other forms of sexual violence against those held in detention facilities in the territory of States Parties to the Rome Statute, including Afghanistan, Poland, Romania and Lithuania."

"After the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) found a reasonable basis to believe that U.S. military and CIA leaders committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in Afghanistan, Team Trump threatened to ban ICC judges and prosecutors from the U.S. and warned it would impose economic sanctions on the Court if it launched an investigation... Once again, the Trump administration is threatening the International Criminal Court. Following the Appeals Chamber’s decision, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared, “This is a truly breathtaking action by an unaccountable political institution, masquerading as a legal body.” He added, “The United States is not a party to the ICC, and we will take all necessary measures to protect our citizens from this renegade, so-called court.” Pompeo is likely referring to the American Service-Members’ Protection Act... it says that if a U.S. or allied national is detained by the ICC, the U.S. military can use armed force to extricate the individual."

"No one except the world’s most brutal regimes win when the United States tries to impugn and sabotage international institutions established to hold human rights abusers accountable... Countries must fully cooperate with this investigation and not submit to any authoritarian tactics by the Trump administration to sabotage it."

"Today, 17th of March 2023, the International Criminal Court has issued two warrants of arrest in the Ukraine situation for Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation and for Maria Lvova-Belova, Commissioner of the Russian President's [office] for children’s rights, for the alleged war crimes of deportation of children from Ukrainian occupied territories into the Russian Federation. It is forbidden by international law for occupying powers to transfer civilians from the territory they live in to other territories. Children enjoy special protection under the Geneva Convention. The contents of the warrants are secret in order to protect victims. The ICC attaches great importance to the protection of victims especially children. Nevertheless, the judges of the chamber dealing with this case decided to make the existence of the warrants public in the interest of justice and to prevent the commission of future crimes. This is an important moment in the process of justice before the ICC, the judges have reviewed the information and evidence submitted by the prosecutor, and determined that there are credible allegations against these persons for the alleged crimes. The ICC is doing its part of work. As a court of law, the judges issued arrest warrants. Their execution depends on international cooperation."

"The International Criminal Court (ICC's) mandate to investigate war crimes has thus been hampered by the unwillingness of the world’s sole superpower to commit to the organization.... Recent statements...suggest that the United States is now preparing to go to war against the ICC itself, motivated largely by an effort to silence investigations into alleged American war crimes committed in Afghanistan, as well as alleged crimes committed by Israel during the 2014 war in the Gaza Strip....The unwillingness or inability of U.S. courts to seriously investigate war crimes carried out by American citizens is part of why the ICC mandate in Afghanistan has been viewed as an important effort to bring a minimum level of accountability over the conflict."

"France is... being sued in the International Criminal Court for alleged "crimes against humanity." The case has been brought by leaders of French Polynesia, citing nearly 200 nuclear tests France carried out in the South Pacific, causing thousands to become ill from radioactive fallout... French Polynesia, which is still officially a collectivity of France... was once the principle location of France's nuclear tests. The country's Mururoa and Fangataufa atolls faced 193 such tests between the 1960s and the mid-1990s, according to France 24.... About 150,000 civilians and military personnel were involved in the tests, and a large number later developed serious health problems as a result. Although about 1,000 people have officially filed complaints against the French government, only 20 have received any compensation... France had long denied any wrongdoing in conducting the tests, arguing that it had no bearing on health and the environment. It wasn't until 2010 that the country officially passed legislation allowing for compensation for veterans and civilians who suffered as a result of the experiments."

"The Prosecutor mandated to oversee the Occupied Palestinian Territory for the International Criminal Court (ICC) stated on Wednesday that her office is keeping “a close eye” on the planned demolition of a Palestinian village in the West Bank by Israeli authorities, warning that, according to international law, it could constitute a “war crime”."

"Approximately 190 herders, half of whom are children, live in Khan al-Ahmar, a village located in the outskirts of East Jerusalem. According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the village is one of dozens affected by an Israeli settlement reorganization plan... “It bears recalling, as a general matter,” said the ICC Prosecutor, “that extensive destruction of property without military necessity and population transfers in an occupied territory constitute war crimes under the Rome Statute.”"

"In September... White House national security adviser John Bolton cited the ongoing investigation and another probe into alleged crimes committed by Israel against Palestinians as signs that the court was "ineffective, unaccountable, and indeed, outright dangerous" in a speech to the Federalist Society in Washington. He rejected "any attempts to constrain the United States," highlighting that the U.S. had "un-signed" the 2002 Rome Statute under former President George W. Bush... "We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC. We will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us," Bolton argued, adding that "the U.S. will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court." Former judge Christoph Flügge cited these comments and U.S. threats to restrict the visas of ICC judges as one of the reasons he felt the need to resign from his decade-long post on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in a January interview with The Guardian. In March, Pompeo announced "a policy of U.S. visa restrictions on those individuals directly responsible for any ICC investigation of U.S. personnel.""

"After the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) found a reasonable basis to believe that U.S. military and CIA leaders committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in Afghanistan, Team Trump threatened to ban ICC judges and prosecutors from the U.S. and warned it would impose economic sanctions on the Court if it launched an investigation"

"The chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court on Thursday reiterated her position that Palestine is a state for the purposes of transferring criminal jurisdiction over its territory to The Hague. Dismissing the legal opinions of several states and dozens of international law scholars, Fatou Bensouda’s view, laid out in great detail in a 60-page document, could pave the way for an investigation of alleged war crimes committed in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. “The Prosecution has carefully considered the observations of the participants and remains of the view that the Court has jurisdiction over the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” she wrote."

"On December 20, concluding a five-year preliminary examination of the “situation in Palestine,” Bensouda said she has “reasonable basis to believe that war crimes were committed” in those regions by both the Israel Defense Forces and Hamas and other “Palestinian armed groups." At the time, she said that she herself believes the court indeed has jurisdiction to investigate possible war crimes in the regions, but, due to the controversial nature of the case, asked for a definitive ruling on the matter from a pre-trial chamber. Member states and independent experts were invited to weigh on the matter as well. “Such a wide variety of perspectives will afford considerable legitimacy to the Court’s ultimate decision,” Bensouda wrote. In the document she published Thursday, Bensouda reiterated that her position is not about the question of Palestinian statehood per se, but rather about whether the “State of Palestine,” which is a member of the ICC, can convey criminal jurisdiction to the court. In her view, Palestine indeed fulfills all required criteria to do that."

"Palestine is a state and the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction involving its cases, the ICC prosecutor ruled Thursday, which could pave the way for a war crimes investigation against Israel. A three-judge panel of the ICC Pretrial Chamber must now affirm the decision by Fatou Bensouda. Israel has been accused of committing war crimes in the West Bank, eastern Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip... Under Bensouda’s 60-page decision, the ICC may exercise its jurisdiction in “territory” that “comprises the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza.”"

"On Friday The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) welcomed the news that the International Criminal Court (ICC) Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda reiterated her position that Palestine is a state for the purposes of transferring criminal jurisdiction over its territory to The Hague, Wafa News Agency reported. Bensouda confirmed her position that the ICC has jurisdiction over the Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem."

"Although the International Criminal Court considered and dismissed possible criminal charges against Tony Blair’s UK Government regarding the invasion and military occupation of Iraq, the actual crime, of invading and militarily occupying a country which had posed no threat to the national security of the invader, was ignored, and the conclusion was that “the situation did not appear to meet the required threshold of the Statute” (which was only “Willful killing or inhuman treatment of civilians” and which ignored the real crime, which was “aggressive war” or “the crime of aggression” — the crime for which Nazis had been hanged at Nuremberg). Furthermore, no charges whatsoever against the U.S. Government (the world’s most frequent and most heinous violator of international law) were considered. In other words: the International Criminal Court is subordinate to, instead of applicable to, the U.S. regime. Just like Adolf Hitler had repeatedly made clear that, to him, all nations except Germany were dispensable and only Germany wasn’t, Barack Obama repeatedly said that “The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation”, which likewise means that every other nation is “dispensable.” The criminal International Criminal Court accepts this, and yet expects to be respected."

"A war crimes complaint has been filed against President Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump adviser Jared Kushner in the International Criminal Court (ICC).... The complaint, filed by Middlesex University law professor William Schabas on June 30 on behalf of four Palestinians who live in the West Bank, states “there is credible evidence” that Trump, Netanyahu and Kushner “are complicit in acts that may amount to war crimes relating to the transfer of populations into occupied territory and the annexation of the sovereign territory of the State of Palestine.” Under article 15 of the ICC’s Rome Statute, any individual, group or organization can bring a complaint to the Office of the Prosecutor. ... Schabas’ complaint comes on the heels of unusual moves last month from the Trump administration, which declared a “national emergency” in June in an effort to shield U.S. and Israeli officials from ICC accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity."

"Palestine acceded to the Rome Statute, thereby becoming a member of the States Parties of the International Criminal Court. The International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) filed an amicus brief on March 16, 2020, urging the ICC to confirm its jurisdiction over Palestine. IADL bureau member Richard Harvey wrote: The ICC’s normative power and legal authority will be strengthened by confirming its jurisdiction over the State of Palestine, including the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, and opening an investigation into the Palestinian situation. Thereby the equal rights of all peoples to justice for international crimes will receive much-needed affirmation.... Sixty-seven ICC member countries representing regions throughout the world issued a joint statement expressing their “unwavering support for the Court as an independent and impartial judicial institution.”"

"As States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), we reconfirm our unwavering support for the Court as an independent and impartial judicial institution. In line with the 11 June press release of the President of the Assembly of States Parties, we reiterate our commitment to uphold and defend the principles and values enshrined in the Rome Statute and to preserve its integrity undeterred by any measures or threats against the Court, its officials and those cooperating with it. We remain committed to an international rules-based order."

"The president of the international criminal court has accused the US of acting unlawfully by threatening an economic and legal offensive against the institution following a decision by judges to open an investigation into war crimes in Afghanistan... “This is unlawful … In any liberal democracy, or even not so liberal democracies, you pick up a statute book and it will tell you that it is against the law to coerce a court of law in order to have justice the way you want it,” Eboe-Osuji said in an interview. “Even in the US itself, the law forbids that form of conduct.”"

"In its Order, which has binding effect, the Court indicates the following provisional measures [...] The Russian Federation shall immediately suspend the military operations that it commenced on 24 February 2022 in the territory of Ukraine [...] The Russian Federation shall ensure that any military or irregular armed units which may be directed or supported by it, as well as any organizations and persons which may be subject to its control or direction, take no steps in furtherance of the military operations referred to [...] above; [...] Both Parties shall refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve."