1. Idézetek
  2. Szerzők
  3. John G. Roberts

John G. Roberts idézet

John G. Roberts az Amerikai Egyesült Államok Legfelsőbb Bíróságának főbírója. Roberts 1976-ban végezte el a Harvard College-ot, majd 1979-ben Juris Doctor fokozatot szerzett a Harvard Egyetem jogi karán. Ezután 1979-80-ban Henry J. Friendly bíró asszisztense volt a New York-i fellebviteli bíróságon, majd William H. Rehnquist, a legfelsőbb bíróság későbbi főbírója asszisztense volt 1980-tól egy évig. Ronald Reagan hatalomra kerülése után az Igazságügyminisztériumban dolgozott két évig, majd a Fehér Ház jogi osztályára került 1982-től 1986-ig. Ezután 1989-ig ügyvédként dolgozott, majd az első Bush-kormányzat idején ismét az Igazságügyminisztériumban volt magas rangú tisztviselő. 1993-tól 2003-ig visszatért az ügyvédi munkához. 2003-ban a washingtoni fellebviteli bíróság bírája, majd 2005-től a Legfelsőbb Bíróság főbírója lett.

Roberts 1996 óta házas. Felesége Jane Marie Sullivan. Két gyermekük van: Josephine és John. Wikipedia  

✵ 27. január 1955
John G. Roberts fénykép
John G. Roberts: 6   idézetek 0   Kedvelés

John G. Roberts: Idézetek angolul

“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.”

Help us translate this quote
John Roberts

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

“Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law… Just who do we think we are?”

Help us translate this quote
John Roberts

Dissent on Supreme Court same-sex marriage ruling — Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015)

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

Help us translate this quote
John Roberts

From the majority opinion in the Seattle School District case (28 June 2007) http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/28/scotus.race/index.html

“Alternatively, the Government proposes that law enforcement agencies "develop protocols to address" concerns raised by cloud computing. Probably a good idea, but the Founders did not fight a revolution to gain the right to government agency protocols.”

Help us translate this quote
John Roberts

Riley v. California, 13-132, 573 U.S. ___, slip opinion http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf at 22 (2014) (Opinion of the Court)

“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.”

Help us translate this quote
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,

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

Help us translate this quote
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).