“Court proceeding,except for certain limited situations,are open to the public.This is for the protection of the accused,to be certain to ascertain that there is a fair trial.”

Free the Airwaves! (2002)

Adopted from Wikiquote. Last update June 25, 2021. History

Help us to complete the source, original and additional information

Do you have more details about the quote "Court proceeding,except for certain limited situations,are open to the public.This is for the protection of the accused…" by Walter Cronkite?
Walter Cronkite photo
Walter Cronkite 50
American broadcast journalist 1916–2009

Related quotes

Alexander Hamilton photo

“The complete independence of the Courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the Legislative authority”

The Federalist Papers (1787–1788)
Context: The complete independence of the Courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the Legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of the Courts of justice; whose duty it must be to declare all Acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

No. 78

Thomas Fuller (writer) photo
Steven Brust photo

“A stupid person can make only certain, limited types of errors; the mistakes open to a clever fellow are far broader.”

Source: Iorich (2010), p. 172 <!-- (goodreads) http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/6874180 -->
Context: A stupid person can make only certain, limited types of errors; the mistakes open to a clever fellow are far broader. But to the one who knows how smart he is compared to everyone else, the possibilities for true idiocy are boundless.

Margaret Thatcher photo
Alexander Hamilton photo

“Courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the People and the Legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the Courts. A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the Judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular Act proceeding from the Legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two”

No. 78
The Federalist Papers (1787–1788)
Context: There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No Legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the Representatives of the People are superior to the People themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. If it be said that the Legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the Representatives of the People to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the Courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the People and the Legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the Courts. A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the Judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular Act proceeding from the Legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the People to the intention of their agents. Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the Judicial to the Legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the People is superior to both; and that where the will of the Legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the People, declared in the Constitution, the Judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental. [... ] whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the Judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.

“It is the more fit for the Supreme Court to give some certain rule in it that may regulate and guide the judgment of inferior Courts.”

Robert Atkyns (judge) (1621–1710) Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer and Speaker of the House of Lords

11 How. St. Tr. 1213.
Trial of Sir Edward Hales (1686)

Slobodan Milošević photo
Benjamin Franklin photo

“But in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes. ”

Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790) American author, printer, political theorist, politician, postmaster, scientist, inventor, civic activist, …
Andrew Sega photo

“Silicon approaches certain fundamental limits; organic bliss is the soul catcher.”

Andrew Sega (1975) musician from America

Isotoxin author comment, 1995 http://modarchive.org/index.php?request=view_by_moduleid&query=46539#texts

William Brett, 1st Viscount Esher photo

“As to proceedings in Courts of justice, it is for the interest of all the public to hear what takes place in Court.”

William Brett, 1st Viscount Esher (1815–1899) British lawyer, judge and politician

Pittard v. Oliver (1891), L. J. 60 Q. B. D. 221.

Related topics