
Confirmation Hearing on the Nomination of William H. Pryor, Jr. to be Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit (June 11, 2003)
Testimony at her confirmation hearing, reported in the New York Times (February 23, 1984).
Confirmation Hearing on the Nomination of William H. Pryor, Jr. to be Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit (June 11, 2003)
Speech to American Enterprise Institute (January 17, 2007)
“One sole God;
One sole ruler, — his Law;
One sole interpreter of that law — Humanity.”
Life and Writings: Young Europe: General Principles. No. 1., reported in Hoyt's New Cyclopedia Of Practical Quotations (1923), p. 318
[Merrick Garland, Confirmation hearing on nomination of Merrick Garland to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, United States Senate, December 1, 1995]; quote excerpted in:
March 18, 2016, The Potential Nomination of Merrick Garland, SCOTUSblog, Tom Goldstein, April 26, 2010 http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/04/the-potential-nomination-of-merrick-garland/, and also excerpted quote from this source, next cited in:
[March 18, 2016, The Quotable Merrick Garland: A Collection of Writings and Remarks, http://www.nationallawjournal.com/home/id=1202752327128/The-Quotable-Merrick-Garland-A-Collection-of-Writings-and-Remarks, Zoe Tillman, The National Law Journal, March 16, 2016, 0162-7325]
Confirmation hearing on nomination to United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (1995)
1960s, First court statement (1962)
Context: In its proper meaning equality before the law means the right to participate in the making of the laws by which one is governed, a constitution which guarantees democratic rights to all sections of the population, the right to approach the court for protection or relief in the case of the violation of rights guaranteed in the constitution, and the right to take part in the administration of justice as judges, magistrates, attorneys-general, law advisers and similar positions.
In the absence of these safeguards the phrase 'equality before the law', in so far as it is intended to apply to us, is meaningless and misleading. All the rights and privileges to which I have referred are monopolized by whites, and we enjoy none of them. The white man makes all the laws, he drags us before his courts and accuses us, and he sits in judgement over us.
America's Drug Forum interview (1991)
Context: The proper role of government is exactly what John Stuart Mill said in the middle of the 19th century in On Liberty. The proper role of government is to prevent other people from harming an individual. Government, he said, never has any right to interfere with an individual for that individual's own good.
The case for is exactly as strong and as weak as the case for prohibiting people from overeating. We all know that overeating causes more deaths than drugs do. If it's in principle OK for the government to say you must not consume drugs because they'll do you harm, why isn't it all right to say you must not eat too much because you'll do harm? Why isn't it all right to say you must not try to go in for skydiving because you're likely to die? Why isn't it all right to say, "Oh, skiing, that's no good, that's a very dangerous sport, you'll hurt yourself"? Where do you draw the line?
Source: "Ana Brnabić: 'I do not want to be branded Serbia's gay PM'" in The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/28/ana-brnabic-serbia-prime-minister-interview (28 July 2017)