The Supreme Court Quotes

Through its interpretation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court hugely shapes the fabric of our society for us and for future generations.

I want a Supreme Court that understands because you're wealthy and you can give more money to something doesn't mean you have any more rights or should have any more rights than anybody else.

Donald Trump's insulting comments about women go hand in hand with his plans to defund Planned Parenthood and appoint Supreme Court justices who will end legal abortion.

I would want to see the Supreme Court reverse Citizens United and get dark, unaccountable money out of our politics.

I want a Supreme Court that will stick with Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose, and I want a Supreme Court that will stick with marriage equality.

I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy.

The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is.

If money is a form of speech, as the Supreme Court has regrettably found, rich donors will always be the loudest speakers.

In rendering its decision in our case, the Supreme Court equated money with speech because these days it takes the first to make yourself heard.

[Donald] Trump has put forward a list of people he would like to see on the Supreme Court, whom the Kochs would be very happy with too. So it's not all bad for them.

The Supreme Court has ruled that anybody can be strip-searched for any kind of arrest. That's something to think about the next time you bring 12 items into a 10-item-or-less lane.

You know, it shows how old I am. I can remember the good old days when the president picked the Supreme Court justices instead of the other way around.

The Supreme Court has held that code is speech. And it doesn't matter that it's done on a computer or done face to face or done in a newspaper, reporting the facts of the world is protected speech.

The truth of the matter is there is significant debate among judicial scholars today as to whether or not we've gone off on the wrong path with regard to Supreme Court decisions.

This country has gotten seriously off track under the Supreme Court when it went so far as to limit the right of even private citizens to freely express their religious views in public.

I want judges on the Supreme Court who will respect the words and the meaning of the Constitution, the laws enacted by Congress and the laws enacted by state legislatures.

I want judges on the Supreme Court who will not use that position to impose their personal policy preferences or political agenda on the American people.

I believe strongly that we should have nominees to the United States Supreme Court based on their qualifications rather than any litmus test.

After 'Roe v. Wade' - when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973 - I thought the national conversation about abortion and birth control would be over. It was not.

Harriet Miers is totally qualified for the Supreme Court of the United States. Her legal background, her absolute leadership in the legal field when she was a practicing lawyer are unqualified.

It's always an uphill battle to defeat a Supreme Court nominee, but this is a fight worth having.

While appropriation art is critical to art, it's an ambiguous art form in the world of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court gives corporations the same rights as a human being. It's absurd. You can't do that.

Don't count out Marian Wright Edelman, because there is talk that President Clinton may want to shock the nation by putting a real black on the Supreme Court.

If you're offended, what the Supreme Court has said the answer to speech you do not like is not less speech, it's more speech. There are many people in America who don't get that.

Here is a good bill that's needed in America. If it's unconstitutional, let the U.S. Supreme Court reverse its opinion and get in line with New Hampshire and that will make it constitutional.

The Supreme Court's 1947 decision which introduced the wall of separation between church and state 'has fueled a movement to sterilize anything in American public life from religion.'

That very document [Constitution] does little to serve people when Supreme Court decisions are written so that even high-priced lawyers can't figure them out.

I was an avidly pro-life governor; I'm an avidly pro-life individual. As a pro-life Republican, I am in favor of having the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade.

If I look at the definition of Hinduism, the Supreme Court of India has given a beautiful definition; it says that Hinduism is not a religion, it is actually a way of life.

I'm distressed to hear you think that judges or the Supreme Court is an organ of a party. That, to me, is just - I know you feel that way. And that distresses me.

I look forward to the time when the membership of the Supreme Court's more reflective of the country it serves.

The American people deserve a Supreme Court justice who can demonstrate that he or she will not be beholden to the president, but only to the law.

The appointment of the next Supreme Court justice must be made in the people's interest and in the nation's interest, not in the interest of any partisan faction.

We do need to rethink privacy. I think we need to fall back on (former Supreme Court Justice) Felix Frankfurter's definition of privacy which is, "Privacy is the right to be left alone."

Well, just as the Supreme Court follows the election returns, you can bet that the bureaucracy does as well.

When the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, Sarah Palin tweeted, 'Obama lies; freedom dies.' She's referring, I guess, to the freedom to go without health care when you're sick.

When did it become the law of the land that the Supreme Court has the final say on anything? They cannot have the final say on anything. The American people have the final say on anything.

Thirty-two years after the legalization of abortion by the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, the majority of Americans consider themselves pro-life.

Corporations are not people, despite what the Supreme Court says, and they don't need or deserve handouts.

I've argued in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. I've argued in almost every circuit. And I tried, as a personal lawyer and U.S. attorney, over 50 cases.

The Supreme Court has only granted citizenship to the children born to legal immigrants, not illegal.

This is what everybody's forgetting about [Barak] Obama and his immigration law and his executive action and his amnesty on it, the Supreme Court decision. Immigration law is settled.

The Supreme Court has never ruled that the children of illegal aliens are American citizens.

Even the Supreme Court, back when it used to makes sense, the Supreme Court has never ruled that a baby born to illegal aliens in the US is automatically a citizen.

The Supreme Court has also issued and never reversed a number of decisions that are repugnant to the Constitution's vision of human dignity and equality.

It is profoundly troubling when you have Supreme Court justices not following their judicial oath. And taking the role of policy makers and legislators, rather than being judges.

This country is always changing. But my point about the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court didn't wait for the country to change. Five unelected lawyers overruled 320 million Americans.

The wonderful thing about being a New York Times columnist is that it's like a Supreme Court appointment - they're stuck with you for a long time.

The President and the Congress are all very well in their way. They can say what they think they think, but it rests with the Supreme Court to decide what they have really thought.