Clarence Thomas (1948) Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
Obergefell v. Hodges http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf (26 June 2015). <br class="br">2010s
2010s, Who's too Weak to Live with Freedom? (2013)
Clarence Thomas (1948) Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
Obergefell v. Hodges http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf (26 June 2015). <br class="br">2010s
Robert H. Jackson (1892–1954) American judge
Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 224–25 (1953)
Judicial opinions
Context: Procedural fairness, if not all that originally was meant by due process of law, is at least what it most uncompromisingly requires. Procedural due process is more elemental and less flexible than substantive due process. It yields less to the times, varies less with conditions, and defers much less to legislative judgment. Insofar as it is technical law, it must be a specialized responsibility within the competence of the judiciary on which they do not bend before political branches of the Government, as they should on matters of policy which compromise substantive law.
If it be conceded that in some way [that the agency could take the action it did], does it matter what the procedure is? Only the untaught layman or the charlatan lawyer can answer that procedure matters not. Procedural fairness and regularity are of the indispensable essence of liberty. Severe substantive laws can be endured if they are fairly and impartially applied. Indeed, if put to the choice, one might well prefer to live under Soviet substantive law applied in good faith by our common-law procedures than under our substantive law enforced by Soviet procedural practices. Let it not be overlooked that due process of law is not for the sole benefit of an accused. It is the best insurance for the Government itself against those blunders which leave lasting stains on a system of justice but which are bound to occur on ex parte consideration.
Stephen Hawking (1942–2018) British theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and author
"The Quantum State of the Universe", Nuclear Physics (1984) <!-- B239, p. 258 -->
Context: Many people would claim that the boundary conditions are not part of physics but belong to metaphysics or religion. They would claim that nature had complete freedom to start the universe off any way it wanted. That may be so, but it could also have made it evolve in a completely arbitrary and random manner. Yet all the evidence is that it evolves in a regular way according to certain laws. It would therefore seem reasonable to suppose that there are also laws governing the boundary conditions.
Gilbert Murray (1866–1957) Anglo-Australian scholar
1920s, The Ordeal of This Generation: The War, the League and the Future (1929)
Source: "Peace and Strife as Elements in Life: The Ideal of “Unhindered Activity”", pp. 37-38
George Orwell (1903–1950) English author and journalist
"Freedom of the Park", Tribune (7 December 1945)
“But when notice is a person's due, process which is a mere gesture is not 'due process.”
Robert H. Jackson (1892–1954) American judge
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950)
Judicial opinions
Jack Williamson book Star Bridge
Source: Star Bridge (1955), “The History,” prelude to Chapter 3, “The Narrow Bridge” (p. 37)
Peter Kropotkin (1842–1921) Russian zoologist, evolutionary theorist, philosopher, scientist, revolutionary, economist, activist, geogr…
Source: "Words of a Rebel"; as quoted in The Heretic's Handbook of Quotations: Cutting Comments on Burning Issues (1992) by Charles Bufe, p. 26
Philip G. Zimbardo book The Lucifer Effect
Source: The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil