In this post, you will find great Courts Quotes from famous people, such as Joel Salatin, Prashant Bhushan, Stephen Breyer, David Lammy, Milos Raonic. You can learn and implement many lessons from these quotes.

Unfortunately in the U.S., the courts have pretty much sided with the GMO lobby and suggesting that a farmer has no rights to be protected from GMO contamination.
In order to provide for their independence, the Constitution made judges of the superior courts immune from removal except by impeachment.
The entertainment industry always chooses to fight things out through the courts and legislation. Technology people always think there’s a business solution.
In countries like the U.S., the courts have upheld the right to burn the national flag as a mark of protest or expression. In India, by contrast, we routinely get hysterical if the flag is ever taken out of the boundaries of officialdom.
Consider this: The United States held its first presidential election in 1789. It marked the first peaceful transfer of executive power between parties in the fourth presidential election in 1801, and it took another 200 years‘ worth of presidential elections before the courts had to settle an election.
When we uphold the rule of law, our counterterrorism tools are more likely to withstand the scrutiny of our courts, our allies, and the American people. And when we uphold the rule of law it provides a powerful alternative to the twisted worldview offered by al-Qa’ida.
Congress has no business telling courts within a state that they are prohibited from considering issues involving a lease for energy development, production, and exploration that has the potential to cause irreparable environmental and economic damage to the Gulf Coast area of that state.
Courts do not make the law.
The Supreme Court and courts in general have been usurping the role of the legislative branch of government.
When Obama took office, Republican appointees controlled ten of the thirteen circuit courts of appeals; Democratic appointees now constitute a majority in nine circuits. Because federal judges have life tenure, nearly all of Obama’s judges will continue serving well after he leaves office.
Defend an institution. Follow the courts or the media, or a court or a newspaper. Do not speak of ‘our institutions‘ unless you are making them yours by acting on their behalf. Institutions don’t protect themselves. They go down like dominoes unless each is defended from the beginning.
Courts are grappling with what it means to be ‘part of’ al Qaida or the Taliban – every case poses a unique challenge, involving individuals with a different degree and type of connection to these terrorist organizations.
Indian classical music was born when time barely existed. It developed further within the structures of royal courts and a system of patronage where the ruler or the feudal master determined all.

Nationwide injunctions not only allow district courts to wield unprecedented power, they also allow district courts to wield it asymmetrically.
President Clinton invoked executive power a bunch of times… I think once he started doing that, the courts really pushed back on him. He couldn’t use it for things that actually had a better basis. He used it for things that were personal, like the Lewinsky investigation, trying to block his aides from testifying.
The framework for everything I’ve done has been human rights. That is about protecting the vulnerable and giving people access to courts where they wouldn’t otherwise have access to courts.
Ultimately, the reason we have a Constitution, the reason we have separation of powers, the reason we have the Fourteenth Amendment is to provide the courts with the opportunity to override the will of the people when the will of the people discriminates against a segment of our society.
The law courts must appear as a threatening gesture toward secret vice. The bank must declare: here your money is secure and well looked after by honest people.
The Constitution of the United States has absolutely nothing to say about a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Were the federal courts to recognize such a right, it would be completely without constitutional basis.
The U.K. courts were very clear that Abu Qatada posed a threat to our national security – that’s why we were pleased as a government to be able to remove him from the United Kingdom.
State courts usually rule that correspondence between government officials, about government business, are public records, whether they use their government e-mail accounts or private ones.
The antitrust litigation currently in the federal courts in the U.S. against Monsanto will be the test case in the life sciences, just as the Microsoft case was the test case in the information sciences.
I give up on spending time on these courts; I give up on practicing before the tournament I hate. I hate this.
Even before his detention, my father was fighting many cases. He remained in jail in Multan. He remained in jail in Bannu. But we were not allowed to go see him there. We always saw him in courts. So for me, the courts were a place where you dressed up to see your father. It had a very nice feeling to it.
The 14th Amendment was recognized right away to be problematic. The concept of person was both too narrow and too broad, and the courts went to work to overcome both of those flaws.
I think it was in 1971 or 1974, the Supreme Court ruled marriage is not a subject that the federal government can exercise jurisdiction over, including the courts. To do that, we would need an amendment to the Constitution.
The law is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the due process clause, the courts will be very busy indeed.
Any quality player can adjust well to the different demands. It is like a good tennis player who is expected to adjust to the clay at the French Open, the grass at Wimbledon, the hard courts of the U.S. and the heat of the Australian Open. A professional is expected to do all that.
At Columbia Law School, my professor of constitutional law and federal courts, Gerald Gunther, was determined to place me in a federal court clerkship, despite what was then viewed as a grave impediment: On graduation, I was the mother of a 4-year-old child.
I wanted to be a hockey player. Where I grew up, the basketball courts were rarely used. I was terrible in school and actually said, ‘I’m going to be a hockey player.’
Marriage is a unique cultural relationship that has a long-standing tradition and societal meaning, which should not be redefined by the courts.
Labour opposes the principle of companies having their own private and privileged courts in which to settle investor-state disputes.

The left loves the courts. They hate constitutional limited government.
I can tell you as a black person in South Carolina whose grandparents grew up through Jim Crow, when you lose the courts and justice no longer becomes just, we’re in a world of trouble.
Flag desecration is not a constitutional issue for the courts. It is a political one that belongs to the people.
Malpractice tort reform can be something as commonsensical as the establishment of medical courts – similar to bankruptcy or admiralty courts – with special judges to make determinations in cases brought by parties claiming injury.
I’m superstitious as far as stuff around the courts. I’ll eat the same things and drink the same things, and have the same breakfast in the morning.
We can’t go to courts in China, so we have to find alternate ways, like working with brands to try and create a level playing field by identifying the most obvious polluters.
In countries with a properly functioning legal system, the mob continues to exist, but it is rarely called upon to mete out capital punishment. The right to take human life belongs to the state. Not so in societies where weak courts and poor law enforcement are combined with intractable structural injustices.
Courts are supposed to interpret laws to avoid ‘absurd results‘ and to avoid constitutional problems – such as infringing on the free speech rights of Americans.
Unless you have a perception of who you are as a lawyer, you will never be at ease in dealing with legal matters, clients, or courts. But if you know who you are and why you’re there, all you need is the expertise and the information.
Well, there is an attorney-client privilege here that needs to be respected, and it’s a privilege that has been found to be worthy of protection by our courts.
Beyond a power play by the oil industry, there is no conceivable explanation for barring courts within any state from considering cases related to oil leases and energy production off its own coastlines.
The stopping of the Judicial courts, had been blended, in the minds of some people, with the redress of grievances considered only as a mode of awakening the attention of the legislature.
Fortunately, the courts discharged me every time after they understood what I had done.
It is not easy for the courts to control the intelligence agencies. There has to be concerted and coordinated effort on part of the courts, the parliament, and the government.
The wide and unregulated power of contempt given to the courts has been deliberately interpreted by the courts in a manner which has served to intimidate the media from exposing corruption and misbehaviour by the courts and judges.
Like other human institutions, courts and juries are not perfect. One cannot have a system of criminal punishment without accepting the possibility that someone will be punished mistakenly.
Wimbledon is quite simply the ultimate championship, and I’d be the first to admit it was the one I wanted to win. A lot has to do with the history and the tradition: the grass courts, the royal box, the grand spectacle of it all.

Like the other Republican candidates, Mr. Trump is pro-life, pro-marriage and will appoint conservatives to the courts.
When you get on to fresh grass courts you always know that they might be a bit slippery but you have to adjust accordingly.
The courts are using the First Amendment to attack religion, when they should be using it to protect religion.
You can’t underestimate rest. Sometimes in tennis we don’t realize that to rest your body is as important as it is to practice. We are traveling so much, all year, in different conditions, different courts, different surfaces, different balls – so we always have to adapt.
Everything needs to be public. The legitimacy of the courts comes from the fact that they reason openly, on the record, based on facts.
How fortunate I was to be alive and a lawyer when, for the first time in United States history, it became possible to urge, successfully, before legislatures and courts, the equal-citizenship stature of women and men as a fundamental constitutional principle.
On clay courts I have some weapons to play a good match.
Mississippi‘s loose campaign finance laws allow lawyers and companies to contribute heavily to the judges they appear before. That is terrible for justice, since the courts are teeming with perfectly legal conflicts of interest.
The ‘free market‘ is the product of laws and rules continuously emanating from legislatures, executive departments, and courts.
So sometimes the facts are good and sometimes the facts are bad, the important thing from the point of view of a principle as broad and important as freedom of speech is that the courts articulate and set forth in a very protective way what those principles are.
Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views.
After the match-fixing allegations, the one thing I had was patience. It took a lot of time for the courts to come to a verdict regarding the case. Sometimes, there were adjournments, but during that time, I had patience. We fought very hard, and finally justice prevailed, and we got the right verdict.
The world may view India more benignly, but it does more business with China. It courts China; it needs China. Look at the genuflecting Europeans and the fork-tongued Americans!
The Court has long held that the Constitution protects certain fundamental rights that are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution’s text, while at the same time emphasizing that courts must proceed with great caution in recognizing such rights.
The Constitution sets out no standards for granting pardons. They require no consent from Congress, and courts can’t second-guess them.

A President can obstruct justice and Congress has the full right to hold a President accountable for such law-breaking through impeachment. After a President leaves office, I believe they may be held accountable through the courts as well.
There are, for example, exemptions in FOIA in which the government can withhold certain kinds of information, and the courts have recognized that there is certain documentation that do deserve protection, that certain privileges do apply and do deserve protection.
Where I grew up, the basketball courts were rarely used.
The Left has taken over the universities and, increasingly, high schools and elementary schools. It dominates the news and entertainment media. And many judges and courts are leftist – meaning that their decisions are guided by leftism more than by the law or the Constitution.
In our system of democracy, our government works on a system of checks and balances. Instead of stripping power from the courts, I believe we should follow the process prescribed in our Constitution – consideration of a Constitutional amendment.
As a general point, the United States has an extreme budget commitment to prisons, guns, warplanes, armored vehicles, detention facilities, courts, jails, drones, and patrols – to law and order, meted out discriminately.
CBS exhausted the Texas courts. They went from the trial court to the intermediate court to the highest court.
Historically courts in this country have been insulated. We do not look beyond our borders for precedents.
I was a truant. And if you’re a truant in New York City, the truant officer gets after you, and then you get into the courts, and then things happen which they really shouldn’t. But I ended up in a very sweet reform school. It’s the place you go to if you’ve got a really kind judge.
Three to four times a week, I get up at 7:30 A.M. while the courts are empty at Venice Beach and play full court one-on-one.
The thing is, most of these courts in San Bernardino know who I am and they’ve researched me. In fact, a couple of judges have asked me how my back’s doing, when my next launch is, so they know who I am. Some of the bailiffs wave hi to me because they follow me on Facebook and see my launch. People know who I am.
Before its immature ways caught up with it, Uber got bigger and went further than Webvan ever did. But it bleeds money, courts controversy, and makes enemies like no company Ive ever seen.
When you have a system that increases border security funding by about 300 percent, and it only increases funding for immigration courts by 70 percent, you have a disaster.
What we have to do is make sure there are prison places for those sent to prison by the courts and we will continue to do that regardless of how many people are sent to prison.
It is the Higher Power which does everything, and the man is only a tool. If he accepts that position, he is free from troubles; otherwise, he courts them.
Under the Clean Water Act, the federal government has jurisdiction over navigable waters – defined as the ‘waters of the United States.’ Federal regulators and the courts have broadened this definition over time, moving from waters a vessel can navigate to ponds and wetlands as well.
The 10 largest antitrust law firms in the United States have gone into the federal courts charging Monsanto with creating a global conspiracy in violation of the antitrust laws, to control the global market in seeds.

The courts have become grotesquely dictatorial and far too powerful.
Would I like to see more women in the courts? Yep.
The true test of whether Mr. Obama has improved on the Bush era lies in how his administration justifies its decisions on the 241 remaining Guantanamo detainees, whose cases will now be evaluated internally and reviewed by the courts.
The work of deciding cases goes on every day in hundreds of courts throughout the land. Any judge, one might suppose, would find it easy to describe the process which he had followed a thousand times and more. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Congress should pass legislation to remove from the federal courts their jurisdiction to hear these outrageous challenges to the Ten Commandments and the Pledge of Allegiance.
Certainly, the president is expected to safeguard the Constitution by vetoing unconstitutional acts of Congress. This is especially true because many laws can only be brought before the courts in a collateral way, if at all.
As an Asst. Secretary of State, I often urged authoritarian governments around the world not to use emergency powers to defy their legislatures, courts, and laws.
We can all play on the court and share the courts with the girls.
And it is no less true, that personal security and private property rest entirely upon the wisdom, the stability, and the integrity of the courts of justice.
And we made decisions on each of those matters which were ultimately upheld by the courts.
While abolishing judgeships and lower federal courts is a blunt tool and one whose use is warranted only in the most extreme of circumstances… it is one of many possibilities to check and balance the judiciary.
Instead of legislating through the courts, Republicans in Congress should join with Democrats to make further progress reducing costs and expanding access to quality healthcare.
Denying our courts the ability to hear oil-related cases of great consequence to our environment and our economy is completely the wrong direction to protect the rights of Floridians.
It was really impossible to break through in Russia. We couldn’t buy any balls. We really didn’t have any courts, no rackets, nothing. And no people to practice with.
One of the litmus tests for judicial conservatism is the idea of judicial restraint – that courts should give substantial deference to the decisions of the political process. When Congress and the president enact a law, conservatives generally say, judges should avoid ‘legislating from the bench.’
Courts have long recognized the federal government’s robust power to inspect people and goods entering the country. After all, the very foundation of national sovereignty is a nation’s ability to protect its borders.
There is a higher court than courts of justice and that is the court of conscience. It supercedes all other courts.

What matters to the evangelical community is Supreme Court justices, economy, religious liberty, Israel, lower courts, human trafficking and abortion.
I want to tell governments and courts, ‘Give orders that can be implemented.’ They should not give orders that work to break the faith of people.
I think that’s what it’s all about; you work hard and practice to play on the big courts.
If the courts regarded tweets and other social media information as private, it would not prevent the law enforcement from getting information it really needs. But the government would have to get a search warrant, which requires it to show that it has probable cause connecting what is being searched to a crime.
It’s unfortunate that the U.K. and Europe don’t have the kind of culture which esteems legal protections enforced by the courts in the same way as, for example, the U.S. does.
The time has come for justice at the ballot box, and justice in the courts, and justice in the legislative halls, and justice in the governor’s office.
We should go forward in courts and Congress with investigations into post-9/11 interrogations and the decisions leading to them.
I think a lot of us women feel like we deserve to play on the big courts in front of a big crowd as well.
Polygraphs are not allowed as evidence in most U.S. courts, but they’re routinely used in police investigations, and the Defense Department relies heavily on them for security screening.
The papers reveal that in several key abortion cases, justices were keenly interested in the perceived public reaction to their rulings – indicating that courts can be influenced by public sentiment.
Especially at Indian Wells, Miami, the hard courts are what I grew up on, so I’m probably most used to it.
When one person does something, you look like an outlier. And whether it makes sense or not, the states get a certain level of respect from the courts that other people don’t.
The transformation of the D.C. Circuit has been replicated in federal courts around the country. Obama has had two hundred and eighty judges confirmed, which represents about a third of the federal judiciary.
I think there is a role for courts in a variety of areas, but the notion that we can allow a federal judge to run our greenhouse gas policy strikes me as preposterous.
What I heard was that Bush is now positioned to have victory after victory. He’ll have Social Security reform passed, that he’ll have tax reform passed, that he’ll have conservative judges on the courts.
I take a very different approach to public service. I’m a person that always takes it out in the streets and in the courts… the tool box that is attached to me is very diverse.

Environmental agencies in China are hamstrung by local officials who put economic growth ahead of environmental protection; even the courts are beholden to local officials, and they are not open to environmental litigation.
I’m feeling good about my movement on grass courts; I can serve a little bit better. This makes me much more dangerous than on hard.
If Congress can strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over school prayer cases, there is no provision in the Constitution immune from congressional tampering.
I played football in the fall when I was in high school. Then basketball, a different conditioning – you’re running up and down the courts. Then you come into baseball, you’re doing a sprint to hit a triple.
It’s been sanctioned by the courts, and I accept that.
Cabinet resolutions approving mass releases of terrorists deal a mortal blow to the status of Israel’s judges and courts.
It is the right of government to protect the weak; it is the right of the weak to find in their courts fair treatment before the law.