The Role of the Supreme Court

Summary

• 95% of cases are clear cut; the other 5% aren't
• Judges should be sympathetic to the powerless
• Courts must be a refuge for justice

Summary

• Judicial authority derives from self-restraint
• Judges too often disregard the voters' wishes
• Judges' reasoning too often lacks rigor

"What you're looking for is somebody who is going to apply the law where it's clear. Now there's gonna be those five percent of cases or one percent of cases where the law isn't clear. And the judge has to then bring in his or her own perspectives, his ethics, his or her moral bearings — and, in those circumstances, what I do want is a judge who is sympathetic enough to those who are on the outside, those who are vulnerable, those who are powerless, those who can't have access to political power and as a consequence can't protect themselves from being being dealt with sometimes unfairly. The courts become a refuge for justice. That's been its historic role. That was its role in Brown v. Board of Education."

" The moral authority of our judiciary depends on judicial self-restraint, but this authority quickly vanishes when a court presumes to make law instead of apply it. . . . " "Sometimes the expressed will of the voters is disregarded by federal judges, as in a 2005 case concerning an aggravated murder in the State of Missouri. As you might recall, the case inspired a Supreme Court opinion that left posterity with a lengthy discourse on international law, the constitutions of other nations, the meaning of life, and 'evolving standards of decency.' These meditations were in the tradition of 'penumbras,' 'emanations,' and other airy constructs the Court has employed over the years as poor substitutes for clear and rigorous constitutional reasoning. . . . "

May 8, 2008
CNN Interview with Wolf Blitzer

May 6, 2008
Winston-Salem, NC
Address at Wake Forest University