Discover the most popular and inspiring quotes and sayings on the topic of Precedents. Share them with your friends on social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, or your personal blogs, and let the world be inspired by their powerful messages. Here are the Top 100 Precedents Quotes And Sayings by 94 Authors including George Washington,Sandra Day O'connor,S.a. Tawks,Livy,Sallust for you to enjoy and share.
Example, whether it be good or bad, has a powerful influence.
Historically courts in this country have been insulated. We do not look beyond our borders for precedents.
If that's the example you want set, you be the example.Set-- S.a. Tawks
The special and salutary benefit of the study of history is to behold evidence of every sort of behavior set forth as on a splendid memorial; from it you may select for yourself and for your country what to emulate, from it what to avoid, whether basely begun or basely concluded.
Every bad precedent originated as a justifiable measure.
The exception is more interesting than the rule. The rule proves nothing; the exception proves everything. In the exception the power of real life breaks through the crust of a mechanism that has become torpid by repetition.
The arch of History is long, but it bends towards justice.
As authors evolve and try to trace the precedents that have shaped their work, it sometimes becomes a matter of identifying the shadowy figure in the back row of the mental photograph, or of grabbing at the tail of a memory that's just slipping out the window into thin air.
Every four years in the presidential election, some new precedent is broken.
No reproof or denunciation is so potent as the silent influence of a good example.
jurisprudence. I
Stability means respecting precedents.
That a rule, which, in speculation, may seem the most advantageous to society, may yet be found, in practice, totally pernicious and destructive.
In a word, we may gather out of History a policy no less wise than I eternal; by the comparison and application of other mens fore-passed miseries with our own like errours and ill-deservings.
One or two particulars may suggest hints of enquiry, and they do well who take those hints; but if they turn them into conclusions, and make them presently general rules, they are forward indeed, but it is only to impose on themselves by propositions assumed for truths without sufficient warrant.
Jurisdictie Prudentia :
Important : Legislation and Jurisdiction :
Justice conform : "Prudentia".
Petra Cecilia Maria Hermans
Babaji
September 20, 2016
In 'Bush v. Gore,' five justices had a partisan outcome in mind and then made up the judicial principle to justify it, while claiming that the decision would not be precedent for any future cases.
It's only now that I realize that behaviour always has a context and precedents, it's what you do rather than what you are, although we often never recognise that context or understand what these precedents are.
Among the enduring truths I keep bumping into when there is the luxury of time to get to know people or institutions, is that their decisions are often made for what are not, strictly speaking, reasons of logic.
We cannot judge of the fact, but the law upon the fact.
I thought I could do that by telling stories of some of the cases that established those principles on a real life on the ground basis.
Donald Verrilli has argued 37 cases in five years on behalf of the [Barak] Obama administration. Many of them turned out to be truly landmark cases. He is the seventh-longest-serving solicitor general in American history.
As knowledge increases, the verdict of yesterday must be reversed today, and in the long run the most positive authority is the least to be trusted.
The exception tests the rule.
The work of deciding cases goes on every day in hundreds of courts throughout the land. Any judge, one might suppose, would find it easy to describe the process which he had followed a thousand times and more. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
publications on both sides of the
So true is it that all transactions of preeminent importance are wrapt in doubt and obscurity; while some hold for certain facts the most precarious hearsays, others turn facts into falsehood; and both are exaggerated by posterity.
Legislative novelty is not necessarily fatal; there is a first time for everything.
history teaches by analogy, shedding light on the likely consequences of comparable situations.
I have an almost complete disregard of precedent, and a faith in the possibility of something better. It irritates me to be told how things have always been done. I defy the tyranny of precedent. I go for anything new that might improve the past.
World history is a court of judgment
In the course of social evolution, usage precedes law; and that when usage has been well established it becomes law by receiving authoritative endorsement and defined form.
Learn from examples in history lest thou be made an example
In discussing tradition, we are not discussing arbitrary rules and conventions. We are discussing answers that have been discovered to enduring questions. These
It is true that the aristocracies seem to have abused their monopoly of legal knowledge; and at all events their exclusive possession of the law was a formidable impediment to the success of those popular movements which began to be universal in the western world.
It is often wonderful how putting down on paper a clear statement of a case helps one to see, not perhaps the way out, but the way in.
History is a vast early warning system.
Does history record any case in which the majority was right?
The most powerful presentations were based on legal precedents, especially Calvin's Case (1608), which, it was claimed, proved on the authority of Coke and Bacon that subjects of the King are by no means necessarily subjects of Parliament.
We must follow the old authorities and precedents in criminal matters.
Where Example keeps pace with Authority, Power hardly fails to be obey'd.
No rules exist, and examples are simply life-savers answering the appeals of rules making vain attempts to exist.
When we deal with questions relating to principles of law and their applications, we do not suddenly rise into a stratosphere of icy certainty.
History is clarified experience.
Tradition is an important help to history, but its statements should be carefully scrutinized before we rely on them.
The law is not a checklist we keep; it is a benchmark we fail.
The past is gained, secure, and on record.
...when these matters are discussed by practical people, the standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel...
A good example is far better than a good precept.
Filibuster has long tradition, but used to harm civil rights.
Law school taught me one thing: how to take two situations that are exactly the same and show how they are different.
The mind demands rules; the facts demand exceptions.
If a community decides that some conduct is prejudicial to itself, and so decides by numbers sufficient to impose its will upon dissenters, I know of no principle which can stay its hand.
How many things both just and unjust are sanctioned by custom?
History cannot teach us any general rule, principle, or law. There is no means to abstract from a historical experience a posteriori any theories or theorems concerning human conduct and policies. The
This is going right to the police. So, it's a very dangerous precedent.
Unheard-of combinations of circumstances demand unheard-of rules.
I would say that the Pentagon Papers case of 1971 - in which the government tried to block the The New York Times and The Washington Post that they obtained from a secret study of how we got involved in the war in Vietnam - that is probably the most important case.
To embarrass justice by multiplicity of laws, or to hazard it by confidence in judges, seem to be the opposite rocks on which all civil institutions have been wrecked, and between which legislative wisdom has never yet found an open passage.
The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading
Progress has been much more general than retrogression
To hear both critics and defenders talk about the fitness of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, you'd think the most successful Supreme Court justices had been warm, collegial consensus-builders. But history tells a different story.
What are we going to say if tomorrow it occurs to some African state to send its agents into Mississippi and to kidnap one of the leaders of the segregationist movement there? And what are we going to reply if a court in Ghana or the Congo quotes the Eichmann case as precedent?
History marches to the drum of a clear idea.
At the conclusion of my argument I received very high compliments from the Chief Justice and later from other of the Judges. What they said I do not care to repeat.
I do not intend to prejudge the past.
I have resolved to demonstrate by a certain and undoubted course of argument, or to deduce from the very condition of human nature, not what is new and unheard of, but only such things as
agree best with practice.
As so often, the ordinary rank and file of the electorate have seen a truth, an important fact, which has escaped so many more clever people the underlying value of that which is traditional, that which is prescriptive.
Every decision has a consequence.
History provides a laboratory in which we see played out the actual, as well as the intended, consequences of ideas.
I walk on untrodden ground. There is scarcely any part of my conduct which may not hereafter be drawn into precedent.
With the experience to judge, one need not pre-judge.
Disputing the commonsense notion that all events require the prior existence of some underlying matter or substance. There is no antecedent static cabinet.
After an existence of nearly 20 years of almost innocuous desuetude, these laws are brought forth.
It is when the colors do not match, when the references in the index fail, when there is no decisive precedent, that the serious business of the judge begins
If you talk about preemption you better know things rather than think things.
Despotism has so often been established in the name of liberty that experience should warn us to judge parties by their practices rather than their preachings.
History is a jangle of accidents, blunders, surprises and absurdities, and so is our knowledge of it, but if we are to report it at all we must impose some order upon it.
You don't approach a case with the philosophy of applying abstract justice-you go in to win
It is but too common, of late, to condemn the acts of our predecessors and to pronounce them unjust, unwise, or unpatriotic from not adverting to the circumstances under which they acted. Thus, to judge is to do great injustice to the wise and patriotic men who preceded us.
It is not often that nations learn from the past,even rarer that they draw the correct conclusions from it.
Our common law is the stock instance of a combination of custom and its successive adaptations.
Law that shocks equity is reason's murderer.
There are, for example, exemptions in FOIA in which the government can withhold certain kinds of information, and the courts have recognized that there is certain documentation that do deserve protection, that certain privileges do apply and do deserve protection.
Whilst every principle of authority and resistance has been pushed, upon both sides, as far as it would go, there is nothing so solid and certain, either in reasoning or in practice, that has not been shaken.
An example is often a deceptive mirror, and the order of destiny, so troubling to our thoughts, is not always found written in things past.
The history of what the law has been is necessary to the knowledge of what the law is.
History is a stern judge.
Sometimes a great example is necessary to all the public functionaries of the state.
It is of course true that any kind of judicial legislation is objectionable on the score of the limited interests which a Court can represent, yet there are wrongs which in fact legislatures cannot be brought to take an interest in, at least not until the Courts have acted.
Nobody supposes that doctors are less virtuous than judges;
but a judge whose salary and reputation depended on whether
the verdict was for plaintiff or defendant, prosecutor or prisoner,
would be as little trusted as a general in the pay of the enemy.
Laws change more slowly than custom, and though dangerous when they fall behind the times are more dangerous still when the presume to anticipate custom.
Patterns repeat themselves in history
It is worth remembering one of the important lessons of the Buck story: a small number of zealous advocates can have an impact on the law that defies both science and conventional wisdom.
If settled means that it cant be re-examined, thats one thing. If settled means that it is a precedent that is entitled to respect then it is a precedent that is protected.
Rules and particular inferences alike are justified by being brought into agreement with each other. A rule is amended if it yields an inference we are unwilling to accept; an inference is rejected if it violates a rule we are unwilling to amend.
As Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute says, what these cases have in common is a view by the Justice Department that "federal power is virtually unlimited: Citizens must subsume their liberty to whatever the experts in a given field determine the best or most useful policy to be.
Today fraudulent research and corruption are sadly becoming more commonplace. The case of Poul Thorsen, for example, stands out in terms of shameless audacity - stealing grant money meant for autism research.
Rules of property ought to be generally known, and not to be left upon loose notes, which rather serve to confound principles, than to confirm them.
Justice Jefferson has a blind spot on race. You know, more than a blind spot. A terrible blemish on his legacy, slavery, for which he's properly excoriated. So, I think [Louis] Brandeis has done this as well.