John Roberts: Protection

John Roberts is Chief Justice of the United States. Explore interesting quotes on protection.
John Roberts: 12   quotes 0   likes

“But the First Amendment protects against the Government; it does not leave us at the mercy of noblesse oblige. We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the Government promised to use it responsibly. […] The Government’s assurance that it will apply [a statutory provision] more restrictively than its language provides is pertinent only as an implicit acknowledgment of the potential constitutional problems with a more natural reading.”

John Roberts

United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1577 (2010) (Opinion of the Court).

Nature , Problem , Reading

“By properly contenting itself with the decision of actual cases or controversies at the instance of someone suffering distinct and palpable injury, the judiciary leaves for the political branches the generalized grievances that are their responsibility under the Constitution. Far from an assault on the other branches, this is an insistence that they are supreme within their respective spheres, protected from intrusion — however welcome or invited — of the judiciary. Separation of powers is a zero-sum game. If one branch unconstitutionally aggrandizes itself, it is at the expense of one of the other branches.”

John Roberts

Article III Limits on Statutory Standing, Duke Law Journal (1993) http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3224&context=dlj; partially quoted in Judges Standing Upside-Down, Linda, Greenhouse, New York Times, September 3, 2015 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/opinion/judges-standing-upside-down.html?_r=0,

Game , Decision , Suffering

“But the First Amendment protects against the Government; it does not leave us at the mercy of noblesse oblige.”

John Roberts

We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the Government promised to use it responsibly. [...] The Government’s assurance that it will apply [a statutory provision] more restrictively than its language provides is pertinent only as an implicit acknowledgment of the potential constitutional problems with a more natural reading.
United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1577 (2010) (Opinion of the Court).