Federal judge

“ In the assessment of evidence and the other elements which enter into a judicial judgment, a federal judge may make judgments different from those which a state judge may make. Federal judges are perhaps to be regarded as men apart-judges who cannot be trusted to judge fairly and impartially. ”

“ The only Americans who hold important official positions for life are the judges of the Federal courts. Radical democrats have always protested against this exception, which, nevertheless, can be permitted without any infringement of democratic principles. The peculiar position of the Federal judge is symptomatic of the peculiar importance in the American system of the Federal Constitution. ”

“ But though binding, they are not conclusive; this court is to examine and judge for itself. If the courts of the United States surrender their judgment to those of the states, it is a concession of vast amount. Respect is due, uniformity is desirable; but submission would take from the courts of the United States their supremacy and usefulness. Even state legislation has never been suffered to change the practice of the federal courts. ”

“ In all questions of a judicial nature of which the court has lawful cognizance, it is the final judge and interpreter, and there is no power in the government to which the court belongs to reverse its decisions or resist its authority, but the jurisdiction of the Federal courts is limited and the Federal judiciary is only a department of the government whose acts are called in question. Numerous instances of usurped powers might occur which the form of the Constitution could never draw within the control of the judicial department. ”

“ When to convene a three-judge court has always been a troublesome problem of federal jurisdiction and a review of the cases involving that question illustrates the difficulties the lower federal courts have had in applying the principles formulated by this Court. [3] However, one rule has been clear: where a state statute is attacked as violating directly some provision of the Federal Constitution, a three-judge court must be convened. ”

“ If we are within our power to give guidance when we believe a single judge has 'erroneously invaded' the province of a three-judge court, we suggest both plaintiffs and defendants here stand to benefit from a hearing before a three-judge court. The jurisdiction of a three-judge court extends to all the questions involved and it can decide such of the questions as in its opinion disposes of this case. If the regulation is found constitutional, it will free defendants from further defense of such cases in the federal courts. ”

“ The reasons for convening an extraordinary court are inapplicable in such cases, for the policy behind the three-judge requirement-that a single judge ought not to be empowered to invalidate a state statute under a federal claim-does not apply. ”

“ Congress realized that, in requiring the presence of three judges, of whom one must be a Justice of this court or a Circuit Judge, it was imposing a severe burden upon the federal courts. [5] The burden was imposed because Congress deemed it unseemly that a single District Judge should have power to suspend legislation enacted by a state. ”

“ Mr. WOODBURY. The proposed bill not only alters the system for local purposes, by requiring the attendance of an additional judge at the Circuit Court in regions of country not so populous as those where the judges of the Supreme Court now attend, but it alters the system for general purposes, by enlarging the Supreme Court itself one half its whole original number; by leaving its quorum so that contradictory decisions may constantly be made without any change in the court itself ”

“ The judges serve for four years; whereas all Federal judges are appointed for life. The Federal courts may only try cases which are directly removed by the constitution from the decision of the state-courts. Wherever a state-court faces the question of whether a Federal treaty or statute or act of authority is valid or applicacable to a case in dispute, and decides that it is not valid or is not applicable, then the person who claims that it is, has the right of appeal to the Federal court, as a state is not competent to decide on such a matter. ”

“ No Congress.
Thursday, November 7.
On the reconsideration of the resolution for exchanging the two foreign officers, its repeal was unanimously agreed to.
A motion was made, by Mr. OSGOOD, to assign an early day for filling up the vacancy in the Court of Appeals. It was opposed on the principle of economy, and the expedient suggested, by Mr. DUANE, of empowering a single judge to make a court until the public finances would better bear the expense. In favor of the motion it was argued, first, that the proceedings of the court were too important to be confided to a single judge ”

“ Subjecting a state official's tenure of office to the discretion of the federal judiciary makes state officers responsible not to the people of the State but instead to federal judges who, according to the holding here, may oust them from their state office without even so much as a simple notice to the State whose officers they are. ”

“ No! "The time never will arrive when America will stand in need of thirty-eight Federal Judges." [172] The Federalist Judiciary Law was "a wanton waste of the public treasure." [173] Moreover, the fathers never intended to commit to National judges "subjects of litigation which ... could be left to State Courts." Answering the Federalist contention that the Constitution guaranteed to National judges tenure of office during "good behavior" and that, therefore, the offices once established could not be destroyed by Congress, the Kentucky Senator observed that "sinecure offices, ... ”

“ It was observed that our state judges might be contented to be federal judges and state judges also. If we are to be deprived of that class of men, and if they are to combine against us with the general government, we are gone.
I consider the Virginia judiciary as one of the best barriers against strides of power—against that power which, we are told by the honorable gentleman, has threatened the destruction of liberty. ”

“ If any of the federal officers should be guilty of the greatest oppressions, or behave with the most insolent and wanton brutality to a man's wife or daughter, where is this man to get relief? If you suppose in the inferior courts, they are not appointed by the states. They are not men in whom the community can place confidence. It will be decided by federal judges Even suppose the poor man should be able to obtain judgment in the inferior court, for the greatest injury, what justice can he get on appeal? ”

“ They should be people who respect the limited scope afforded Federal judges under the Constitution. They should be people who understand that the Founders' concern about the expansive tendency of power extended to judicial power as well as to executive or legislative power. They should be people who are humbled by their role in our system, not emboldened by it. ”

“ That's why the appointment of Federal judges has become such a flashpoint issue for so many. Judges stand in our system where our commitment to limited government meets our commitment to the rule of law. To the extent that judges impose their own will, they undermine both the structure of limited government and the rule of law.
History teaches us that without the rule of law there is nothing â?? no form of oppression, no form of physical suffering -- that people will not inflict upon one another. ”

“ There must be a Supreme Court of Justice, and a system of subordinate courts in every state of the Union, before whom such questions shall be carried, and whose judgment on them, in the last stage of appeal, shall be final. Every state of the Union, and the federal government itself, as well as every functionary of each, must be liable to be sued in those courts for exceeding their powers, or for non-performance of their federal duties, and must in general be obliged to employ those courts as the instrument for enforcing their federal rights. ”

“ The executive magistrate would be considered as a national officer, acting for and equally sympathizing with every part of the United States. If the second branch alone should have this power, the judges might be appointed by a minority of the people, though by a majority of the states, which could not be justified on any principle, as their proceedings were to relate to the people rather than to the states ”

“ What we are doing, in essence, is to vacate a state court judgment, not because it is found to be inconsistent with federal law, but because the state court has not told us, with an acceptable degree of formality, what reasons led to rendering it. ”

“ The Court has consistently held to the view that it cannot overrule the determination of Congress as to whether federal courts should be allowed jurisdiction, concurrent with the State courts, even where the plaintiff seeks to restrain action of a State agency. ”

“ We should stop in its infancy, before it has any growth at all, this idea that the United States district judges can be made accountable for their efficiency or lack of it to the judges just over them in the federal judicial system. ”

“ Congress may avail itself of state courts for the enforcement of federal rights, but it must take the state courts as it finds them, subject to all the conditions for litigation in the state courts that the State has decreed for every other litigant who seeks access to its courts. ”

“ The aid of the judges will give more wisdom and firmness to the executive. They will possess a systematic and accurate knowledge of the laws, which the executive cannot be expected always to possess. The law of nations, also, will frequently come into question. Of this the judges alone will have competent information.
Mr. MADISON considered the object of the motion as of great importance to the meditated Constitution. It would be useful to the judiciary department by giving it an additional opportunity of defending itself against legislative encroachments. ”

“ After mentioning the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which extends to but three cases, it gives it appellate jurisdiction, in all other cases mentioned, both as to law and fact, indiscriminately and without limitation. Why not remove the cause of fear and danger? But it is said that the regulations of Congress will remove these. I say that, in my opinion, they will have a contrary effect, and will utterly annihilate your state courts. Who are the court? The judges. It is a familiar distinction. We frequently speak of a court in contradistinction from a jury. ”

“ The judges are an independent and coördinate branch of the government, deriving their authority from the Constitution, and not from Congress. They are accountable to the sovereign people; and if guilty of malpractice in administering the laws, they can and ought to be impeached; and you are the tribunal before which they are to answer, but there your powers cease. You have powers to punish judges for corruption, but none to revise or correct their decisions. ”

“ As it is to be presumed that inferior tribunals will be constituted, there will be no occasion for going always to the Supreme Court, even in cases where the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. ”

“ Law is essentially legalistic the sense that observance of wellrecognized procedure is, on balance, socially desirable. In the well-being of a federalism like ours observance of what on casual view may appear as a sterile technicality is important whenever this Court is brought in potential conflict with State courts. Especially is it important as to those vast reaches of the criminal law which are exclusively within State domain, and which are therefore not subject to the supervision which this Court may exercise over the lower federal courts. ”

“ That the majority has lost sight of the animating principles of federalism is well illustrated by its discussion of the duty of a federal court to determine whether a state court judgment rests on an adequate and independent state ground. According to the majority's formulation, establishing this duty in the federal court serves to diminish the risk that a federal habeas court will review the federal claims of a prisoner in custody pursuant to a judgment that rests upon an adequate and independent state ground. ”