Earl Warren citáty

Views on civil rights declared in a written statement requested by Robert W. Kenny, read during fund raising luncheon at the Biltmore Hotel, in Los Angeles, in the summer of 1938, quoted in Lawyers Guild Review Vol. 13-14 (1953), p. 47; he mentions Frank Hague, who had declared earlier in the year:
Kontext: I believe the preservation of our civil liberties to be the most fundamental and important of all our governmental problems, because it always has been with us and always will be with us and if we ever permit those liberties to be destroyed, there will be nothing left in our system worthy of preservation. They constitute the soul of democracy. I believe that there is grave danger in this country of losing our civil liberties as they have been lost in other countries. There are things transpiring in this country today that are definitely menacing our future; among which are the activities of Mayor Hague and other little Hagues throughout the country. These activities are so basically wrong and so menacing to our institutions that every citizen and particularly every public official should oppose them to the limit of their strength.

United States v. Robel (1967) - Findlaw file http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=389&invol=258
Kontext: This concept of "national defense" cannot be deemed an end in itself, justifying any exercise of legislative power designed to promote such a goal. Implicit in the term "national defense" is the notion of defending those values and ideals which set this Nation apart. For almost two centuries, our country has taken singular pride in the democratic ideals enshrined in its Constitution, and the most cherished of those ideals have found expression in the First Amendment. It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties — the freedom of association — which make the defense of our nation worthwhile.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 445 (1965) - Opinion of the Court
Kontext: Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking there can be no questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him. The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the right of refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 478-79 (1965)
Kontext: To summarize, we hold that, when an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant way and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized. Procedural safeguards must be employed to protect the privilege, and unless other fully effective means are adopted to notify the person of his right of silence and to assure that the exercise of the right will be scrupulously honored, the following measures are required. He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that, if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.

United States v. Robel (1967) - Findlaw file http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=389&invol=258
Kontext: This concept of "national defense" cannot be deemed an end in itself, justifying any exercise of legislative power designed to promote such a goal. Implicit in the term "national defense" is the notion of defending those values and ideals which set this Nation apart. For almost two centuries, our country has taken singular pride in the democratic ideals enshrined in its Constitution, and the most cherished of those ideals have found expression in the First Amendment. It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties — the freedom of association — which make the defense of our nation worthwhile.

Interview in 1953 after being appointed to the Supreme Court, as quoted in Earl Warren : A Political Biography (1967) by Leo Katcher, p. 315
Kontext: You sit up there, and you see the whole gamut of human nature. Even if the case being argued involves only a little fellow and $50, it involves justice. That's what is important.

Views on civil rights declared in a written statement requested by Robert W. Kenny, read during fund raising luncheon at the Biltmore Hotel, in Los Angeles, in the summer of 1938, quoted in Lawyers Guild Review Vol. 13-14 (1953), p. 47; he mentions Frank Hague, who had declared earlier in the year:
Kontext: I believe the preservation of our civil liberties to be the most fundamental and important of all our governmental problems, because it always has been with us and always will be with us and if we ever permit those liberties to be destroyed, there will be nothing left in our system worthy of preservation. They constitute the soul of democracy. I believe that there is grave danger in this country of losing our civil liberties as they have been lost in other countries. There are things transpiring in this country today that are definitely menacing our future; among which are the activities of Mayor Hague and other little Hagues throughout the country. These activities are so basically wrong and so menacing to our institutions that every citizen and particularly every public official should oppose them to the limit of their strength.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 445 (1965) - Opinion of the Court
Kontext: Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking there can be no questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him. The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the right of refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned.

Dissent in Times Film Corp. v. City of Chicago 365 U.S. 43 (1961)
1960s

As quoted in Sports Illustrated (22 July 1968)
Variants:
I always turn to the sports page first, which records people's accomplishments. The front page has nothing but man's failures.
As quoted in Best Sports Stories : 1975 (1976) by Irving T. Marsh
I always turn to the sports pages first, which records people's accomplishments. The front page has nothing but man's failures.
As quoted in The Norton Book of Sports (1992) by George Plimpton, p. 470
1960s

In "The Law and the Future," in The public papers of Chief Justice Earl Warren (1959) edited by Henry M. Christman .

As quoted in The Book of Business Quotations (1991) by Eugene Weber, p. 20
Undated

Writing in Saturday Review (23 October 1971), p. 16
1970s

Writing for the court, Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
1950s

On the subject of state Senate apportionment, in Reynolds v. Sims (1964)
1960s

Statement on celebrating his 83rd birthday (March 1974), as quoted in The Reader's Digest (1980) Vol. 116, p. 43
1970s

Writing for the court, Spano v. New York 360 U.S. 321 (1959)
1950s

Concurring in the judgment, Lopez v. United States 373 U.S. 427 (1963)
1960s

Address to National Press Club in Washington DC, as quoted in Freedom and Union (April 1952)
Variants:
Most people consider the things which government does for them to be social progress, but they consider the things government does for others as socialism.
As quoted in Politics and Policies : The Continuing Issues (1970) by Duane W. Hill, p. 170.
Many people consider the things which government does for them to be social progress, but they consider the things government does for others as socialism.
As quoted in Encarta Book of Quotations (2000) edited by Bill Swainson, p. 969
1950s

Writing for the court, Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
1950s

Speech at the Louis Marshall Award Dinner of the Jewish Theological Seminary, Americana Hotel, New York City (11 November 1962)
1960s

As quoted in Earl Warren : A Great American Story (1948) by Irving Stone, p. 64
1940s

As quoted in Do It : Let's Get Off Our Buts (1992) by Peter John Roger McWilliams
Paraphrased variant: Everything that I did in life that was worthwhile, I caught hell for.
As quoted in Compact Fruit Tree (2002) Vol. 35-38, by International Dwarf Fruit Tree Association, p. 32
Undated

Speech at the Louis Marshall Award Dinner of the Jewish Theological Seminary, Americana Hotel, New York City (11 November 1962)
1960s

Loving v. Virginia http://www.amazon.com/Everyone-African-Science-Explodes-Myth/dp/1633880184/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 (1967).
1960s

Speaking to William O. Douglas on the afternoon of the day he died (9 July 1974) as quoted in The Court Years, 1939-1975 : The Autobiography of William O. Douglas (1980), p. 514
1970s

On the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, quoted in Minute by Minute (1985)
Undated

Testimony on Internment of people of Japanese Ancestry before the House Select Committee Investigating National Defense Migration (Tolan Committee) in 1941; of this statement Warren later said, in The Memoirs of Earl Warren (1977):
I have since deeply regretted the removal order and my own testimony advocating it, because it was not in keeping with our American concept of freedom and the rights of citizens. Whenever I thought of the innocent little children who were torn from home, school friends, and congenial surroundings, I was conscience-stricken. It was wrong to react so impulsively, without positive evidence of disloyalty, even though we felt we had a good motive in the security of our state. It demonstrates the cruelty of war when fear, get-tough military psychology, propaganda, and racial antagonism combine with one's responsibility for public security to produce such acts. I have always believed that I had no prejudice against the Japanese as such except that spawned by Pearl Harbor and its aftermath.
1940s

Speech at Columbia University (14 January 1954)
1950s