Supreme Court Quotations

[Volokh, Eugene]

        "The Double Jeopardy Clause is and has always been, not a provision
designed to assure reason and justice in the particular case, but the
embodiment of technical, prophylactic rules that require the Government to
turn square corners. . . .  With technical rules, above all others, it is
imperative that we adhere strictly to what we have stated the rules to be.
A technical rule with equitable exceptions is no rule at all.  Three strikes
is out.  The State broke the rules here, and must abide by the result."

        Jones v. Thomas, 491 U.S. 376, 396 (1989) (Scalia, J., dissenting).



        "The Court has convincingly proved that the Maryland procedure . . .
gives the defendant virtually everything the Confrontation Clause guarantees
(everything, that is, except confrontation).  I am persuaded, therefore,
that the Maryland procedure is virtually constitutional.  Since it is not,
however, actually constitutional I would . . . revers[e] the judgment of
conviction."

        Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 870 (1990) (Scalia, J.,
dissenting).



        "I . . . share Justice Stevens's aversion towards paternalistic
governmental policies that prevent men and women from hearing facts that
might not be good for them.  On the other hand, it would also be paternalism
for us to prevent the people of the States from enacting laws that we
consider paternalistic, unless we have good reason to believe that the
Constitution itself forbids them."

        44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484, 516 (1996)
(Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).



        "[T]he American people love democracy and the American people are
not fools.  As long as this Court thought (and the people thought) that we
Justices were doing essentially lawyers' work up here -- reading text and
discerning our society's traditional understanding of that text -- the
public pretty much left us alone. . . .   But if in reality our process of
constitutional adjudication consists primarily of making value judgments . .
. then a free and intelligent people's attitude towards us can be expected
to be (ought to be) quite different.  The people know that their value
judgments are quite as good as those taught in any law school -- maybe
better.   If, indeed, the 'liberties' protected by the Constitution are, as
the Court says, undefined and unbounded, then the people should demonstrate,
to protest that we do not implement their values instead of ours.  Not only
that, but confirmation hearings for new Justices should deteriorate into
question-and-answer sessions in which Senators go through a list of their
constituents' most favored and most disfavored alleged constitutional
rights, and seek the nominee's commitment to support or oppose them. Value
judgments, after all, should be voted on, not dictated; and if our
Constitution has somehow accidently committed them to the Supreme Court, at
least we can have a sort of plebiscite each time a new nominee to that body
is put forward. "

        Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 1000 (1992) (Scalia, J.,
dissenting).



        "It never ceases to amaze me that the courts are so willing to
assume that anything that is predominantly black must be inferior."

        Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 113 (1995) (Thomas, J.,
concurring).



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred Shapiro [SMTP:]
> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 8:47 AM
> To:   CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu
> Subject:      Supreme Court Quotations
>
> I previously appealed to this list for contributions of law-related
> quotations for the second edition of my book, The Oxford Dictionary of
> American Legal Quotations.  The response was modest.  Let me try again
> with a more focused query:  I would welcome contributions of famous or
> eloquent or historically important quotations from U.S. Supreme Court
> opinions of the 1990s.  Contributors of more than one quotation that
> appears in the published second edition will be acknowledged in the book's
> preface.
>
> Fred R. Shapiro                             Coeditor (with Jane Garry)
> Associate Librarian for Public Services     TRIAL AND ERROR: AN OXFORD
>   and Lecturer in Legal Research            ANTHOLOGY OF LEGAL STORIES
> Yale Law School                             Oxford University Press, 1998
> e-mail: fred.shapiro at yale.edu               ISBN 0-19-509547-2
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 21:12:43 -0800
> From: Fred Shapiro <fred.shapiro at yale.edu>
> Reply-To: lawcourts-l at usc.edu
> To: The Law and Courts Discussion List <lawcourts-l at usc.edu>
> Subject: Quotations Appeal
>
> I am beginning to work on the second edition of the Oxford Dictionary of
> American Legal Quotations (Oxford University Press).  This is generally
> considered to be the most authoritative and most comprehensive legal
> quotation book.
>
> Now and for the next couple of years, I would welcome contributions of
> quotations that are not already included in the first edition of the
> ODALQ.  Quotations from the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000's are particularly
> valuable, but older quotations not in the first edition are also
> desirable.  I would prefer quotations with precise sources, but even
> unattributed quotes are useful.  Contributors of more than one quotation
> included in the published second edition will be acknowledged in the
> Preface.
>
> Please e-mail contributions to me at fred.shapiro at yale.edu.
>
>
> Fred R. Shapiro                             Coeditor (with Jane Garry)
> Associate Librarian for Public Services     TRIAL AND ERROR: AN OXFORD
>   and Lecturer in Legal Research            ANTHOLOGY OF LEGAL STORIES
> Yale Law School                             Oxford University Press, 1998
> e-mail: fred.shapiro at yale.edu               ISBN 0-19-509547-2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20000406/f9441e2b/attachment.htm