The reasonableness of the agency of the national courts in cases in which the state tribunals cannot be supposed to be impartial, speaks for itself. No man ought certainly to be a judge in his own cause, or in any cause in respect to which he has the least interest or bias.
Interpretation
The quote emphasizes the importance of impartiality in justice, arguing that individuals cannot fairly judge cases where they have a personal stake.
In this quote, Alexander Hamilton discusses the critical role of impartiality in judicial proceedings. He asserts that when state courts cannot operate fairly, national courts must step in, as it is fundamentally unjust for individuals to be judges in cases where they hold any interest or bias. This highlights a cornerstone of fair trial principles, where judges must be free from any conflict of interest to uphold justice.
In practice
During a lecture on judicial fairness, this quote can illustrate the necessity for impartial judges.
When men, engaged in unjustifiable pursuits, are aware that obstructions may come from a quarter which bare apprehension of opposition from doing what they would with eagerness rush into if no such external impediments were to be feared.
The tendency of a national bank is to increase public and private credit. The former gives power to the state, for the protection of its rights and interests: and the latter facilitates and extends the operations of commerce among individuals. Industry is increased, commodities are multiplied, agriculture and manufacturers flourish: and herein consists the true wealth and prosperity of a state.
It's not tyranny we desire; it's a just, limited, federal government.
The Achaeans soon experienced, as often happens, that a victorious and powerful ally is but another name for a master.
The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge right or make good decision.
The true principle of a republic is that the people should choose whom they please to govern them. Representation is imperfect, in proportion as the current of popular favor is checked. The great source of free government, popular election, should be perfectly pure, and the most unbounded liberty allowed.
The civil forfeiture law - if something so devoid of due process can be dignified as law - is an incentive for perverse behavior: Predatory government agencies get to pocket the proceeds from property they seize from Americans without even charging them with, let alone convicting them of, crimes. Criminals are treated better than this because they lose the fruits of their criminality only after being convicted.
Those who consent to the act and those who do it shall be equally punished.
One is entitled to say without qualification that the correlation between prior judicial experience and fitness for the Supreme Court is zero.
When in Gregg v. Georgia the Supreme Court gave its seal of approval to capital punishment, this endorsement was premised on the promise that capital punishment would be administered with fairness and justice. Instead, the promise has become a cruel and empty mockery. If not remedied, the scandalous state of our present system of capital punishment will cast a pall of shame over our society for years to come. We cannot let it continue.
Swift justice demands more than just swiftness.
I am much happier fighting for justice than I ever was fighting for money.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.