"Ideological warriors whether from the Left or the Right are bad news for the bench. They tend to make law, not interpret law. And that's not what any of us should want from our judges"
About this Quote
Charles Schumer invokes a classic American ideal about the judiciary: judges should interpret the law, not make it. By warning against ideological warriors from either the Left or Right, he underscores the separation of powers, where legislatures craft policy and courts apply statutes and constitutional provisions to concrete disputes. The bench depends on public trust, and that trust erodes when judges look like politicians in robes precommitted to outcomes. If courts appear partisan, rulings feel like policy decrees rather than legal judgments, inviting backlash and talk of reforms such as court expansion or term limits.
The line also reflects the bruising politics of judicial confirmations. As a longtime senator and now party leader, Schumer has been central to these battles, where nominees are probed for signals of how they might rule on abortion, voting rights, campaign finance, and executive power. His warning functions as both principle and rhetoric: a call for restraint that simultaneously justifies opposing nominees viewed as activists. Of course, accusations of judicial activism are often reciprocal. Originalists insist they are merely reading text and history; living constitutionalists argue they are faithfully applying broad principles to new realities. Each side claims interpretation, and labels the other side as lawmaking.
Still, Schumer points to a real danger: when judges become ideological combatants, they cherry-pick precedent, contort readings of statutes, or stretch constitutional clauses to reach preferred results. That behavior undermines stare decisis and the predictability that allows citizens and institutions to order their affairs. The better ideal is a judge who is open to persuasion, grounded in text and precedent, transparent in reasoning, and alive to institutional limits. Complete neutrality may be impossible, but discipline, candor, and humility can keep personal views from driving outcomes. The legitimacy of the courts depends on that restraint, and so does the rule of law.
The line also reflects the bruising politics of judicial confirmations. As a longtime senator and now party leader, Schumer has been central to these battles, where nominees are probed for signals of how they might rule on abortion, voting rights, campaign finance, and executive power. His warning functions as both principle and rhetoric: a call for restraint that simultaneously justifies opposing nominees viewed as activists. Of course, accusations of judicial activism are often reciprocal. Originalists insist they are merely reading text and history; living constitutionalists argue they are faithfully applying broad principles to new realities. Each side claims interpretation, and labels the other side as lawmaking.
Still, Schumer points to a real danger: when judges become ideological combatants, they cherry-pick precedent, contort readings of statutes, or stretch constitutional clauses to reach preferred results. That behavior undermines stare decisis and the predictability that allows citizens and institutions to order their affairs. The better ideal is a judge who is open to persuasion, grounded in text and precedent, transparent in reasoning, and alive to institutional limits. Complete neutrality may be impossible, but discipline, candor, and humility can keep personal views from driving outcomes. The legitimacy of the courts depends on that restraint, and so does the rule of law.
Quote Details
| Topic | Justice |
|---|
More Quotes by Charles
Add to List
