Judicial Reform Act of 1997: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifth Congress, First Session, on H.R. 1252, Judicial Reform Act of 1997, May 14, 1997

Front Cover
 

Selected pages

Other editions - View all

Common terms and phrases

Popular passages

Page 136 - If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way, which the constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation ; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at...
Page 127 - there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers'.
Page 135 - Any person alleging that a circuit, district, or bankruptcy judge, or a magistrate, has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts...
Page 131 - That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the Courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from Judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission.
Page 94 - Great constitutional provisions must be administered with caution. Some play must be allowed for the joints of the machine, and it must be remembered that legislatures are ultimate guardians of the liberties and welfare of the people in quite as great a degree as the courts" (Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry.
Page 127 - ... union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy...
Page 132 - An interlocutory or permanent injunction restraining the enforcement, operation or execution of any Act of Congress for repugnance to the Constitution of the United States shall not be granted by any district court or judge thereof unless the application therefor is heard and determined by a district court of three judges under section 2284 of this title.
Page 93 - Court spoke of the need for a proper respect for state functions, a recognition of the fact that the entire country is made up of a Union of separate state governments, and a continuance of the belief that the National Government will fare best if the States and their institutions are left free to perform their separate functions in separate ways.67 The Court then went on to describe "our federalism" as follows: The concept does not mean blind deference to "States...
Page 132 - States, or by any judge thereof, or by any circuit judge acting as district judge. upon the ground of the unconstitutionality of such statute, unless the application for the same shall be presented to a justice of the Supreme Court of the united States, or to a circuit...
Page 93 - Court has defined these principles as a proper respect for state functions, a recognition of the fact that the entire country is made up of a Union of separate state governments, and continuance of the belief that the National Government will fare best if the States and their institutions are left free to perform their separate functions in their separate ways.

Bibliographic information