“Opportunities will be equal. The procedures will be fair. The result will be just.”

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.

On net neutrality, The Rush Limbaugh Show, March 16, 2010 http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031610/content/01125111.guest.html

Speech in the House of Commons (24 November 1976) http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/103146
Leader of the Opposition
Context: The word “equality” is often used, but, wisely, rarely defined. The moment one tries to define it, one gets into great difficulty. For example, it cannot mean equality of incomes or earnings; otherwise, we would not need more than one union. Indeed, we would not need one union. If we are to have opportunity, we cannot have equality, because the two are opposite. We may have equality of opportunity, but if the only opportunity is to be equal, it is not opportunity.

Steppin' off the Edge http://steppinofftheedge.com/podcast/philosophy-of-open-source/, Podcast Interview, January 2011

Source: Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. 1975, p. 212

Source: A Theory of Justice (1971; 1975; 1999), Chapter IV, Section 37, p. 230

LBJ in the Commencement Address at Howard University http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eyesontheprize/sources/ps_bakke.html on June 4, 1965 on affirmative action.
1960s

Source: Political Liberalism (1993), p. 6