Supreme Court

facebook_page
twitter_page

Last quote about Supreme Court

Richard Ratcliffe
I hadn't had great hopes for the supreme court appeal. Now, realising that that's it, that all options are gone … in the middle of an election cycle, it's hard to get attention on Nazanin's case.feedback
share this quote
NEW Apr 24 2017
“I think the 100 days is, you know, it's an artificial barrier. It's not very meaningful. Things change. There has to be flexibility. Somebody put out the concept of a hundred-day plan. I didn't put Supreme Court judge on the 100 (day) plan, and I got a Supreme Court judge. And if I do a super-duper, higher, better, better security, everything else, maybe it goes a little bit more.” said Donald J. Trump speaking about Supreme Court. It’s one of the 342 quotes about Supreme Court you can find on this page. 210 people have said something about this topic. Among them: Chuck Schumer, Neil Gorsuch and Mitch McConnell. Browse the quotes by date and by name to find those that are relevant to you.
Automatically powered by Storyzy
Take our quote verification challenge and find out !

All quotes about Supreme Court

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

People often ask me if, as the first woman on the Supreme Court, I had any special preferences for my robe. But honestly, I took whatever was available and put it on.feedback

Jennifer Rubin

President Trump’s approval polling remains dreadful by historical standards. In the latest Marist poll, he draws only 39 percent approval, 49 disapproval (statistically insignificant from a month ago, when his numbers were 38 percent/51 percent). Gallup shows him with 40 percent approval, 54 percent disapproval (up, but not dramatically, from his low point). Overall, his RealClearPolitics average is 41.4 approval/51.6 percent disapproval. All this follows confirmation of his Supreme Court pick, now-Justice Neil Gorsuch, and a show of force against Syria. There are a few takeaways from this.feedback

Elizabeth Nash - Guttmacher Institute

One of these states are looking to be that state to enact the law that ends up at the Supreme Court and overturns Roe v. Wade. That's what we're watching for.feedback

Scott Braden

We are grateful that the Arkansas Supreme Court has issued a stay of execution for Bruce Ward so that they may consider the serious questions presented about his sanity. He deserves a day in court for that, but in Arkansas the rules do not permit that. Instead, they give the power to director of the department of corrections to decide whether the department can execute someone or not. That is both unfair and unconstitutional.feedback

Roy S. Moore

There are strong constitutional concerns with this legislation given that the U.S. Supreme Court has firmly ruled on the issue, therefore House Bill 780 will be referred to the House Rules Committee and will not be heard.feedback

Michael Gerhardt

It could pass, but it doesn't matter because it is plainly unconstitutional. It is directly contrary to what the United States Supreme Court has said on this subject. It violates the rights that the United States Supreme Court has recognized, so as a result, I think it would be struck down by any court in this country.feedback

Orin Kerr

In v. Jardines (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a front porch is a Fourth Amendment protected area but that there is an “implied license” allowing the police to walk up to the front door and knock in at least some cases. If the police are just coming to talk to the homeowner, the court concluded, that’s within the implied license and no Fourth Amendment search occurs. Homeowners implicitly consent to people coming to knock on the door and talk to them; that’s why they have doorbells. On the other hand, if the police are bringing a drug sniffing dog to smell for drugs, that is outside the implied license. People don’t implicitly consent to people coming to search them, and bringing a drug-sniffing dog to the front porch is a clear objective sign that the officers intend to search them. Coming to the front porch with a drug-sniffing dog is therefore a search, and the police ordinarily can’t do that without a warrant.feedback

Deborah Arnott - Action on Smoking and Health

The ruling by the Supreme Court finally puts paid to Big Tobacco's attempts to overturn the UK legislation on standardised packaging. This is the latest in a long line of crushing legal defeats for the tobacco industry. Over the years the industry has squandered many millions of pounds of its own money in futile legal challenges, but worse still it has wasted public time and money, which could have been much better spent improving public health.feedback

Lori A. Ringhand

It's not clear it would be to the electoral advantage to Republicans to have a hotly contested Supreme Court nomination right before the midterms that highlighted a nominee's extremely conservative positions on social issues that the majority of the public have actually accepted.feedback

John G. Roberts Jr.

I want to point out one thing – that throughout this whole process, the Supreme Court has been quietly going about its business of deciding the cases before it, according to the Constitution, in a completely nonpartisan way. We've done it for the past 14 months with one vacancy, and we'll do it going in the future now that we have a full complement.feedback

John G. Roberts Jr.

The new justice is not a Republican, not a Democrat, he is a member of the Supreme Court. But it is hard for people to understand that when they see the process that leads up to it. We might end up talking like they do in Congress. As it turns out, there are very few.feedback

Sarah Huckabee Sanders

Once again this is a completely false story driven by people who want to distract from the success taking place in this administration. The President's pick for the Supreme Court (a decision that has generational impact) was confirmed today, we hosted multiple foreign leaders this week and the President took bold and decisive military action against Syria last night. The only thing we are shaking up is the way Washington operates as we push the President's aggressive agenda forward.feedback

Jennifer Rubin

President Trump and his fans are badly mistaken if they think a single show of force on Syria (followed by a declaration that nothing has changed) and the elevation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court are going to plug the hole in his sinking ship. By his own declaration, Trump seems bent on returning to President Barack Obama’s Syria policy, doing nothing to steer the ship of state in a different direction. There seems to be nothing much new that would accelerate “eradication” of the Islamic State, as Trump promised. Likewise, activists are glad that a conservative jurist is replacing Antonin Scalia, but Gorsuch’s confirmation merely defends a conservative seat. Until there are other replacements on the court, Gorsuch won’t be able to deliver on Trump’s and right-wing lawyers’ exaggerated promises of reversing liberal precedent. If the Syria strikes are not repeated or other Supreme Court openings don’t materialize, these two accomplishments will fade from the headlines.feedback

Jennifer Rubin

Eighty days into President Trump’s term, he arguably has only two successes - getting confirmed a Supreme Court judge pre-vetted by conservative lawyers and returning to mainstream Republican foreign policy, even if temporarily, in launching strikes on Syria. The unpredictable president sent to shake up Washington succeeds when he at his most conventional.feedback

Ed Rogers

I don’t want to jinx anything, but President Trump may be experiencing the best sequence of events since he became president. Just this week, he received bipartisan support for his military strike in Syria, secured Judge Neil Gorsuch’s Senate confirmation to the Supreme Court, had impressive meetings with both King Abdullah II of Jordan and President Abdel Fatah al-Sissi of Egypt, caught a break with the Susan Rice scandal, and it appears he has walked away from a successful encounter with Chinese President Xi Jinping - all without knocking it off the rails with a wayward tweet. And it’s not just me saying that, no less than Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass wrote that this was “arguably [the] best of Donald Trump’s still young presidency, from [a] successful strike in Syria to confirmation of his Supreme Court nominee.” Imagine that, decisive and poised presidential action from the president himself.feedback

Chuck Schumer

I hope Judge Gorsuch has listened to our debate here in the Senate, particularly about our concerns about the Supreme Court increasingly drifting towards becoming a more pro-corporate court that favors employers, corporations and special interests over working Americans. So we are charging Judge Gorsuch to be the independent and fair-minded justice that America badly needs. If he is instead a justice for the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, that will spell trouble for America.feedback

Chuck Schumer

I believe it will make this body a more partisan place. It will make the cooling saucer of the Senate considerably hotter, and I believe it will make the Supreme Court a more partisan place.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

Senator, he has no idea how I'd rule in that case. And, Senator, I'm not going to say anything here that would give anybody any idea how I'd rule in any case like that that could come before the supreme court.feedback

Sarah Sanders

Once again this is a completely false story driven by people who want to distract from the success taking place in this administration. The president's pick for the Supreme Court (a decision that has generational impact) was confirmed today, we hosted multiple foreign leaders this week and the president took bold and decisive military action against Syria last night.feedback

Mitch McConnell

This is a person of extraordinary credentials who will bring honor to the Supreme Court for many, many years to come. So it is indeed a proud day.feedback

Samuel A. Alito

It was unreal. It was sort of surreal. I've had many times during those periods where I've had to pinch myself to say, Yeah, you're really here. You're on the Supreme Court. This is really happening.feedback

Donald J. Trump

It is a great honor to announce the historic confirmation of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch as Associate Justice to the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Gorsuch's confirmation process was one of the most transparent and accessible in history, and his judicial temperament, exceptional intellect, unparalleled integrity, and record of independence makes him the perfect choice to serve on the Nation's highest court. As a deep believer in the rule of law, Judge Gorsuch will serve the American people with distinction as he continues to faithfully and vigorously defend our Constitution.feedback

Mitch McConnell

As I look back on my career, I think the most consequential decision I've ever been involved in was the decision to let the president being elected last year pick the Supreme Court nominee.feedback

Mitch McConnell

This will be the first and last partisan filibuster of the Supreme Court. This threatened filibuster cannot be allowed to succeed or to continue for the sake of the Senate, for the sake of the court and for the sake our country. The opposition to this particular nominee is more about the man that nominated him and the party he represents than the nominee himself.feedback

Mitch McConnell

This will be the first, and last, partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee. This is the latest escalation in the left's never-ending judicial war, the most audacious yet, and it cannot and will not stand.feedback

Bernie Sanders

I don't think there was a speech I gave where I didn't talk about the importance of the Supreme Court. The message, I think, is: We don't change America unless we increase voter turnout, and we get greater public consciousness. It'll be difficult to do that with Citizens United still standing, and with voter suppression taking place. And those are issues that come right before the Supreme Court. I think a lot of people are not fully aware of the impact of the Supreme Court on workers' rights, on the environment, on women's rights, and we've got to do better at communicating that.feedback

Bernie Sanders

Four years ago, Democrats, facing incredible, unprecedented obstructionism, decided to change the rules. But with the Democrats in control, what they also said – I was in the room, and there was a debate – was no, not the Supreme Court. It's so important that it does not become a place where you can just ram someone in.feedback

Chuck Schumer

We believe that what Republicans did to Merrick Garland was worse than a filibuster. The nuclear option means the end of a long history of consensus on Supreme Court nominations, it weakens the standing of the Senate as a whole.feedback

Molly Reynolds

If the Senate changes its precedents for the consideration of Supreme Court nominees, it could be reversed. The most likely (but not only avenue) would be to use the same process by which Republicans are likely to change the precedent today, but in reverse.feedback

Jennifer Rubin

Senators voted on Thursday to advance Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, setting up a final confirmation vote on Friday.feedback

Chuck Schumer

While I'm sure we will continue to debate what got us here, I know that in 20, 30, or 40 years, we will sadly point to today as a turning point in the history of the Senate and the Supreme Court. This is a day when we irrevocably move away from the principles our Founders intended for these institutions: principles of bipartisanship, moderation, and consensus.feedback

Daniel W. Drezner

There’s a lot of talk about the erosion of political norms going around in 2017. Today might be the day that the GOP majority ends the Senate filibuster to ensure the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. This is the inevitable endpoint to the “parliamentary arms race” caused by increased polarization. Of course, [].feedback

Chuck Schumer

The consequences for the Senate and for the future of the Supreme Court will be far-reaching. Democrats "have principled reasons to vote against this nominee.feedback

Chuck Schumer

We will sadly point to today as a turning point in the history of the Senate and the Supreme Court. A day when we irrevocably moved further away from the principles our founders intended for these institutions. Each side comes here today in full confidence that their side is in the right.feedback

Mitch McConnell

Democrats would filibuster Ruth Bader Ginsburg if President Donald Trump nominated her. There is simply no principled reason to oppose this exceptional, exceptional Supreme Court nominee.feedback

Jonathan Adler

Barring the unexpected, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Friday will seek to invoke cloture on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court, a majority of Senate Democrats will vote to filibuster the nomination by opposing cloture, and McConnell will seek a majority vote to reinterpret the Senate rules to preclude a nomination filibuster as then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) did in 2013.feedback

Jeff Merkley

For the first time in history, we are considering a nominee for a stolen Supreme Court seat, and that alone should be reason for everyone who cares about this institution to turn down this nominee. We should not be considering a nominee from a president who is under investigation for conspiring with Russia to change the outcome of an election.feedback

Jeff Merkley

Gorsuch "is much like his idol and role model Antonin Scalia and other far-right conservatives on the Supreme Court. And while this unbalanced approach might make for interesting reading the courtroom is not an academic paper each case involves real people with real problems.feedback

Greg Sargent

As of now, Sen. Jeff Merkley continues to speak on the Senate floor, in an effort to prevent Neil Gorsuch from getting confirmed to the Supreme Court. But despite the Oregon Democrat’s valiant effort, which has lasted at least 14 hours, Gorsuch’s confirmation appears inevitable. On Wednesday the Senate will vote on Gorsuch; Democrats will filibuster; and Republicans will subsequently eliminate the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees, allowing Gorsuch to get through.feedback

Elizabeth Warren

I'll be honest. I think it is crazy that we are considering confirming a lifetime Trump nominee to the Supreme Court at a moment when the president's campaign is under the cloud of an active, ongoing FBI counterintelligence investigation that could result in indictments and appeals that will go all the way to the Supreme Court so that Trump's nominee could be the deciding vote on whether Trump or his supporters broke the law and will be held accountable. That is nuts.feedback

Dale Carpenter

In a major decision breaking with every other federal appeals court to rule on the issue, the en banc Seventh Circuit held today that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination forbidden by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The vote was 8-3. The opinion in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, by Judge Diane Wood, reasoned that sexual orientation discrimination is essentially indistinguishable from sex discrimination because the former relies on stereotyped concepts about how men and women should behave sexually and about with whom they should associate in their intimate lives. Because the decision creates a circuit split on the issue of anti-gay employment discrimination for the first time, the matter could now go to the Supreme Court as soon as next Term.feedback

Chuck Schumer

I cannot believe [McConnell] can stand here on the floor of the U.S. Senate and with a straight face say that Democrats are launching the first partisan filibuster of the Supreme Court nominee. What the majority leader did to Merrick Garland by denying him even a hearing and a vote is even worse than a filibuster. For him to accuse Democrats of the first partisan filibuster on the Supreme Court belies the facts, belies the history, belies the basic truth.feedback

Mitch McConnell

It was unfortunate to see our Democratic colleagues on the Committee break with recent precedent and not support this clearly well-qualified and widely respected Supreme Court nominee. But it's not too late for our Democratic colleagues to make the right choice. I can tell you that Neil Gorsuch will be confirmed this week. How that happens really depends on our Democratic friends.feedback

Steven Cheung

This false attack has been strongly refuted by highly-regarded academic experts, including those who reviewed, professionally examined, and edited Judge Gorsuch's scholarly writings, and even the author of the main piece cited in the false attack. There is only one explanation for this baseless, last-second smear of Judge Gorsuch: those desperate to justify the unprecedented filibuster of a well-qualified and mainstream nominee to the Supreme Court.feedback

Steven T. O'Neill

I don't intend to send anything other than the Supreme Court document out.feedback

Joe Trevisani

The more you see the lack of achievement on the part of the administration with respect to its campaign goals, the rougher it's going to be for the dollar. If we see the administration not able to advance the Supreme Court nomination, then it means down the road that it is not likely to achieve its goals on trade, on tax reform, and the possible stimulus. That would hurt dollar.feedback

Steven I. Vladeck

So long as the current Supreme Court believes that Clinton v. Jones is good law (which, to be sure, may not be self-evident given all that followed), I just don't find compelling the idea that there's a constitutionally significant difference between a sitting president's amenability to suit in state versus federal court.feedback

Michael Bennet

Neither Republicans nor Democrats are blameless for where things stand in our politics and on this nomination. But at some point, we need to take the long view and stand up for our institutions. Using the filibuster and nuclear option at this moment takes us in the wrong direction. I have spent the past several weeks trying to avoid this outcome. Changing the Senate rules now will only further politicize the Supreme Court and prevent the Senate from blocking more extreme judges in the future.feedback

Angus King

The idea of a 60-vote requirement for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court doesn't strike me as out of line with Senate tradition. What I'm suggesting is I think the 60-vote margin requires some level of bipartisanship. And whether it's on legislation or on a major appointment like this, that isn't bad for the country that you have to have people and ideas that have some level of buy-in from both parties.feedback

Russell Wheeler

Very few senators want where this is going to end up, which is ending the Supreme Court filibuster for nominees. So they're on this train headed to disaster and no one can put the brakes on it.feedback

Shaila Dewan - The New York Times

The U.S. Supreme Court has previously barred the execution of inmates who are so mentally impaired that they do not comprehend that they are going to be executed, but it has stopped short of outright banning the execution of the mentally ill.feedback

Jennifer Rubin

You’d think he would get tired of losing. “Ten weeks into his presidency, Donald Trump hasn’t had an easy week yet. Mr. Trump has hit regular high points-the nomination of a Supreme Court justice, a smooth speech to a joint session of Congress, an active deal-making role in health-care negotiations. But they have each been punctured, within hours or days, by low points-courts blocking his travel restrictions, an early-morning tweet about wiretapping, and the collapse of those talks to repeal the Affordable Care Act.”.feedback

Charles Grassley

This nominee that we're voting on today is a judge's judge. He's a picture of the kind of justice we should have on the Supreme Court. I believe then and I believe now that we took the right course for the Senate and for the court.feedback

Sheldon Whitehouse

Dark money infiltrating the confirmation of his Supreme Court nominee is a further sad sign of billionaire and special interest influence gnawing at the heart of American democracy. I don't mind the money coming in. Let it be transparent. Let them talk, but let there be total transparency.feedback

Joe Donnelly

After meeting with Judge Gorsuch, conducting a thorough review of his record, and closely following his hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I believe that he is a qualified jurist who will base his decisions on his understanding of the law and is well-respected among his peers. I was deeply disappointed by the way the most recent Supreme Court nominee, Judge Garland, was treated by the Senate, but as Senator, I can only vote on the nominee that comes to the Senate floor. However, I believe that we should keep the current 60-vote threshold for Supreme Court nominees.feedback

Mitch McConnell

What I can tell you is that Neil Gorsuch will be confirmed this week. How that happens really depends on our Democratic friends. How many of them are willing to oppose cloture on a partisan basis to kill a Supreme Court nominee? That's an absurd question. We were right in the middle of a presidential election year. Everybody knew that neither side – if the shoe had been on the other foot – would have filled it. But that has nothing to do with what we are voting on this year.feedback

Mitch McConnell

I can tell you that Neil Gorsuch will be confirmed this week. How that happens really depends on our Democratic friends. How many of them are willing to oppose cloture, on a partisan basis, to kill a Supreme Court nominee? Never happened before in history, in the whole history of the country.feedback

Pat McCrory

The fact of the matter is, they did not get a full repeal of H.B. 2. They do not have the power at the local level to change the definition of gender, which is really what it comes down to, are we going to change the definition of gender or not? And that shouldn't be a decision made by a mayor or a governor or the NCAA. That's not their right to make that decision. This is going to end up going to the Supreme Court.feedback

Claire McCaskill

This is a really difficult decision for me. I am not comfortable with either choice. While I have come to the conclusion that I can't support Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court – and will vote no on the procedural vote and his confirmation – I remain very worried about our polarized politics and what the future will bring, since I'm certain we will have a Senate rule change that will usher in more extreme judges in the future. I cannot support Judge Gorsuch because a study of his opinions reveal a rigid ideology that always puts the little guy under the boot of corporations.feedback

Chuck Schumer

We made one mistake, we shouldn't have changed the rules for lower court judges ... but we never did it for Supreme Court. This is a much bigger mistake on their behalf.feedback

Julio Borges

This is trash from people who have kidnapped the constitution, rights and freedom of Venezuelans ... The National Assembly does not recognize the Supreme Court.feedback

Joe Manchin

During his time on the bench Judge Gorsuch has received praise from his colleagues who have been appointed by both Democrats and Republicans. He has been consistently rated as a well-qualified jurist, the highest rating a jurist can receive, and I have found him to be an honest and thoughtful man. I hold no illusions that I will agree with every decision Judge Gorsuch may issue in the future, but I have not found any reasons why this jurist should not be a Supreme Court Justice.feedback

Geoffrey R. Stone

Until the 1950s, the Supreme Court had little to say about the possible relevance of the Constitution to laws dealing with such issues as obscenity, contraception, abortion and homosexuality.feedback

Joe Manchin

During his time on the bench, Judge Gorsuch has received praise from his colleagues who have been appointed by both Democrats and Republicans. He has been consistently rated as a well-qualified jurist, the highest rating a jurist can receive, and I have found him to be an honest and thoughtful man. I have no illusions that I will agree with every decision that Judge Gorsuch will make in the future, but I have not found any reasons why this jurist should not be a Supreme Court justice.feedback

Julio Borges

This is a ruling against a people who voted for change in their country. The Supreme Court believes it can walk over the Venezuelan people. In the name of the people, I want to say clearly what this ruling means to us. This is simply trash.feedback

Jennifer Rubin

Republicans insist on getting Judge Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court. Democrats refuse to “reward” them for denying Obama nominee Judge Merrick Garland a vote. Democrats do not seem to have enough votes (40) to trigger the filibuster that would trigger the “nuclear option, ” abolishing the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. Each side has risks. Republicans will one day be out of the majority and the White House, facing a super-liberal nominee. Democrats fear a second Trump nominee if a seat is vacated could make Gorsuch seem liberal by comparison. So where are we?feedback

Joe Manchin

After considering his record, watching his testimony in front of the Judiciary Committee and meeting with him twice, I will vote to confirm him to be the ninth justice on the Supreme Court. Throughout Judge Gorsuch's career, he has come to his legal rulings objectively, through the letter of the law rather than through his own opinion. I hold no illusions that I will agree with every decision Judge Gorsuch may issue in the future, but I have not found any reasons why this jurist should not be a Supreme Court Justice.feedback

Patrick Leahy

I felt that if the Republicans had followed the Constitution … Chief Judge Merrick Garland would be on the Supreme Court today.feedback

Bernie Sanders

It's not a question of filibuster. I am for the Republicans obeying the rules that currently exist, and not changing those rules. And the rules right now, for good reasons, are 60 votes. You're using the word filibuster. All it is, is there will be – no, it is not. There will be a vote. If he doesn't get 60 votes, he does not become Supreme Court justice. That's the rule right now. It's not like people are going to be there standing for months and months, bringing down the government. That is what the current rule is. And I think it's important that it be maintained.feedback

Jennifer Rubin

In a time of increasing polarization Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) is one of the few remaining “centrists.” Speaking from the Senate floor as a centrist and as a veteran of many Supreme Court nominations, she reminded her colleagues of recent history, urging them not to filibuster Judge Neil Gorsuch.feedback

Gloria Allred

Summer seeks vindication of her rights and reputation for what her lawsuit alleges was personal misconduct by then candidate Trump before his having been elected to the office of the President of the United States. The United States Supreme Court addressed this legal immunity issue in Clinton v. Jones and determined unanimously that no man is above the law and that includes the President of the United States. We look forward to arguing this issue in court.feedback

Richard Primus

What a ruling in 4th Circuit in favor of the administration would do is create a split in authority between federal courts in different parts of the country. Cases with splits in authority are cases the U.S. Supreme Court exists to resolve.feedback

Donna Wunderlich

The extra cases represent a lot of extra work, but we are soldiering through. The Supreme Court has authorized the use of surrogate judges. District judges from around the state have agreed to help.feedback

Jonathan Adler

Even before he was nominated to the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch’s criticism of the Chevron doctrine attracted attention. Although some portray his concerns as extreme, he’s hardly the only federal judge to have concerns about the way Chevron deference (and related agency deference doctrines) play out in practice.feedback

Jon Stewart - The Daily Show

There has never, in the history of the Republic, ever been a successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

The point of a precedent – I'm trying to be as helpful to you as I can be here, Senator – is that it represents collective wisdom. And to say I agree or I disagree with a precedent of the United States Supreme Court, as a judge, that's an act of hubris that to me just doesn't feel like a judicial function.feedback

Chuck Schumer

After careful deliberation, I have concluded that I cannot support judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court. My vote will be no, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.feedback

Chuck Schumer

After careful deliberation, I have concluded that I cannot support Judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court. He declined to answer question after question with any substance. I say if this nominee cannot reach 60 votes...the answer isn't to change the rules. It's to change the nominee.feedback

Patrick Leahy

You have been very hesitant to even talk about various Supreme Court precedents.feedback

Jonathan E. Meyer

I think this ultimately goes to the Supreme Court, and I think it is likely to find a Supreme Court that is much more open to the government's arguments once Judge Gorsuch is confirmed and sworn in. So it's quite possible that part of what is going on right now is slowing things down to allow that to happen.feedback

Chuck Schumer

President Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, was unanimously rebuked today by the Supreme Court.feedback

Achilles Macris

The FCA has won its case on a technical interpretation of the law. Although the Supreme Court has ruled that I was not identified, the reality is that the FCA's final notice to JP Morgan made findings about my conduct which the FCA had to retract. That is wrong and unfair. It should be no excuse for the FCA to say that it doesn't matter because I was not identified within the meaning of the act.feedback

Jennifer Rubin

We have reached the part of the Supreme Court justice confirmation hearing when senators are repeating themselves. (In a court of law, the objection would be: “Asked and answered.” Alas, no one can tell a U.S. senator to hush up.) Just as in the confirmation hearings of Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch has said everything that can ethically be said about particular matters. Accordingly, the party that did not nominate the judge has grown frustrated and downright cranky. Gorsuch has gone no further than those nominees of President Barack Obama - and certainly than Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. (“A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”).feedback

Neil Gorsuch

Senator, as the book explains, the Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the book explains that. That's the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, senator, yes.feedback

Jennifer Rubin

In his back-and-forth with Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) made an interesting remark concerning President Trump’s attacks on the courts. Blumenthal specifically referenced Trump’s crack about the “so-called” judge who ruled against him and recalled that Trump blamed the courts for any terrorist attack if the Muslim ban was not upheld. Blumenthal said that if a litigant came before Gorsuch, he might entertain a motion for contempt. That is an interesting proposition, one that may come into play and that we will get to in a moment.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

That's a softball, Mr. Chairman. I have no difficulty ruling against or for any party, other than based on what the law and facts in the particular case require. And I'm heartened by the support I have received from people who recognize that there's no such thing as a Republican judge or a Democratic judge. We just have judges in this country. I wasn't about to become a party to such a thing. It has been reaffirmed many times. A good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court worthy of treatment of precedent like any other.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

I'm distressed to hear that you think that judges or the Supreme Court is an organ of the party. … It distresses me. It is, for me, a failure to appreciate the beauty of our system. Nobody will capture me.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

All human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong. What I wrote in the book was I agree with the Supreme Court in the [Cruzan v. Director decision]. Then Senator, the position I took in the book on that was anything necessary to alleviate pain would be appropriate and acceptable, even if it caused death, not intentionally but knowingly. I drew a line between intent and knowingly. And I've been there. I have been there.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

The Supreme Court is our boss. To suggest that I have some animus against children, senator, would be a mistake. I can't think of one offhand. They don't speak for me. I speak for me. I am independent. I make up my own mind.feedback

Dianne Feinstein

So how does one look at you, and we've talked about precedent. For the life of me, I really don't know, when you're there (on the Supreme Court), what you're going to do with it. And as you say, this isn't text. This is life. And young women take everything for granted today. And all of that could be struck out with one decision.feedback

Adam Feldman

He's going to face these federalism issues on the Supreme Court, where it has implications beyond just the local level.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

When anyone criticises the honesty, integrity, the motives of a federal judge, I find that disheartening, I find that demoralising, because I know the truth. Roe vs Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed, and all of the other factors that go into analysing precedent have to be considered. A good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any other. Once a case is settled, that adds to the determinacy of the law.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

When I became a judge, they gave me a gavel not a rubber-stamp. A good judge doesn't give a whit about politics or the political implications of his or her decision, (and) decides where the law takes him or her fearlessly. I'm not in a position to tell you whether I personally like or dislike a precedent. That's not relevant to my job. A good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court worthy of treatment of precedent like any other. A judge is there to make sure that every person, poor or rich, mighty or meek, gets equal protection of the law.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

Senator, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that single-sex marriage is protected by the Constitution.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

We have a free exercise clause that protects the free exercise of religious liberty by all persons in this country. If you're asking me how I apply it to a specific case, I can't talk about that for understandable reasons. It would be a violation of the separation of powers and judicial independence if someone sitting at this table in order to get confirmed had to make promises or commitments about how they would rule in a case that's currently pending and likely to make its way to the Supreme Court.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

"Senator, he has no idea how I'd rule in that case and, Senator, I'm not going to say anything here that would give anybody any idea how I'd rule in any case like that that cold come before the Supreme Court,"feedback

Chuck Schumer

There is a cloud now hanging over the head of the president, and while that's happening, to have a lifetime appointment made by this president seems very unseemly and there ought to be a delay. You can bet that if the shoe was on the other foot – and a Democratic president was under investigation by the FBI – that Republicans would be howling at the moon about filling a Supreme Court seat in such circumstances. After all, they stopped a president who wasn't under investigation from filling a seat with nearly a year left in his presidency.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

It's a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. Senator, no man is above the law. That doesn't happen everywhere else around the world. We take it for granted in this country. It's a remarkable blessing from our forefathers. And it is a daunting prospect as a judge to have to carry that baton.feedback

Richard Blumenthal

We meet this week in a looming constitutional crisis. Just hours ago, not far from here, the director of the FBI revealed that his agency is investigating potential ties between President Trump's associates and Russian meddling in our election. The possibility of the Supreme Court needing to enforce a subpoena against the president is no longer idle speculation.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

If I were to start telling you which are my favorite precedents or which are my least favorite precedents," "or view it in that fashion, I would be tipping my hand and suggesting to litigants I already made up my mind about their cases. That's not a fair judge. Well, no senator. I'm happy to say Shelby is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It's a recent one, it's a controversial one. I understand that.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

They're people. I try to treat each case and each person as a person. Not a this kind of person or that kind of person. A person. Equal justice under law is a radical promise. ... The Supreme Court of the United States has held that single-sex marriage is protected under the Constitution.feedback

Patrick Leahy

If Republicans had followed the Constitution, Chief Judge Merrick Garland would be on the Supreme Court.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

You'd have to ask them. A lot of people say a lot of silly things. We have a constitution. And it does guarantee freedom to exercise. It also guarantees equal protection of the laws and a whole lot else besides, and the Supreme Court has held that due process rights extend even to undocumented persons in this country. I will apply the law faithfully and fearlessly and without regard to persons. There was a tug of war among parties in the White House. I was acting in my capacity as a speech writer. I think people liked my writing.feedback

Richard Blumenthal

We meet this week in a looming constitutional crisis. Just hours ago, not far from here, the director of the FBI revealed that his agency is investigating potential ties between Pres. Trump's associates and Russian meddling in our election. The possibility of the Supreme Court needing to enforce a subpoena against the president is no longer idle speculation.feedback

Mitch McConnell

As you know, I played arguably the single biggest role in having the vacancy there. And politically, oddly enough, not only did it not hurt our guys who were running, it actually helped the president bring Republicans home, and he ended up getting 90 percent of the Republican vote, just like Mitt Romney did, and the single biggest issue was, who do I want to make this Supreme Court appointment.feedback

Dick Durbin

I want to hear from you why Mr. Priebus would say that. Most Americans question whether we need a Supreme Court justice with the vision of Donald Trump.feedback

Jennifer Rubin

After hours of speeches from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee - some more insightful than others but all long-winded and unnecessary - Judge Neil Gorsuch delivered a humble, folksy opening statement at his Supreme Court confirmation hearing. “Ours is a judiciary of honest black polyester, ” he said, making the point that judges are not the leading lights in a democracy but rather occupy a “modest station.” His plain-spoken remarks and humility provided a stark contrast to the senators’ self-indulgent pontificating.feedback

Orrin Hatch

Let the American people decide whether they want Hillary Clinton or the Republican nominee to select the next Supreme Court justice.feedback

Ted Cruz

Had his vacant seat been filled by Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, Justice Scalia's legacy would have been in grave danger. We would have seen a Supreme Court majority that viewed itself as philosopher kings. . . . We would have seen our democratic process controlled by five unelected lawyers here in Washington.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

Senator, he has no idea how I'd rule in that case and, senator, I'm not going to say anything here that's going to give anybody any idea how I'd rule in any case like that that could come before the Supreme Court or my court on the 10th Circuit. It would be grossly improper of a judge to do that. It would be a violation of the separation of powers and judicial independence if someone sitting at this table, in order to get confirmed, had to make promises or commitments about how they'd rule in a case that's currently pending and likely to make its way to the Supreme Court.feedback

Michael Bennet

But, Mr. Chairman, two wrongs never make a right. The Supreme Court is too important for us not to find a way to end our destructive gridlock and bitter partisanship.feedback

Orrin Hatch

Something is seriously wrong when the confirmation process for a Supreme Court justice resembles an election campaign for political office.feedback

Ilya Somin

Earlier today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Murr v. Wisconsin, an important takings case. If the oral argument is any indication, the case might well result in a muddled ruling that fails to provide clear guidance for either government regulators or property owners.feedback

Dick Durbin

Your nomination is part of a Republican strategy to capture our judicial branch of government. That is why the Senate Republicans kept this Supreme Court seat vacant for more than a year, and why they left 30 judicial nominees who had received bipartisan approval of this committee to die on the Senate calendar as President Obama left office.feedback

Orrin Hatch

The Senate owes the president some deference with regard to Supreme Court nominees.feedback

Orin Kerr

Supreme Court confirmation hearings can be frustrating. If you’re watching, you probably want to know how the nominee would decide important cases if confirmed. No matter the question, however, nominees usually avoid giving revealing answers. Some fault the senators for not asking the right questions. But I don’t think it’s the senators’ fault. As I see it, there is no way to make nominees give revealing answers unless they wish to do so.feedback

Ilya Somin

Today is the first day of confirmation hearings for Judge Neil Gorsuch, Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court. George Will recently published a thoughtful column with a list of questions he hopes senators might ask Gorsuch at the hearings. Most of Will’s questions are ones I would very much like to hear the answers too, as well. Here are a few additional suggestions of my own.feedback

Abbe Lowell

While the senator always understood it is rare that the Supreme Court hears any case before trial, given the gravity of the constitutional issues raised, he believed it was important to try. As the senator has been saying for more than four years since the government began chasing these wild allegations, he has always acted in accordance with the law. Senator Menendez remains confident that he will be vindicated when all the facts are heard at trial.feedback

Chuck Schumer

Given the chance, I have no doubt he'll do it again on the Supreme Court. I have some real doubts about He has been a judge who has favored the wealthy interests over the middle class. Judge Gorsuch has repeatedly sided with corporations over working people, demonstrated a hostility toward women's rights, and most troubling, hewed to an ideological approach to jurisprudence that makes me skeptical that he can be a strong, independent Justice on the Court.feedback

Elizabeth Wydra

From the air you breathe and the water you drink to the roof over your head and the person across from you in bed, the Supreme Court touches all of that.feedback

Mitch McConnell

Of course the American people should have a say in the court's direction. It is the president's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice. And it is the Senate's right to act as a check on a president and withhold its consent.feedback

Russ Feingold

He's not a person who normally would be associated with something as illegitimate as taking a Supreme Court seat that absolutely does not belong to this president.feedback

Ilya Somin

If property owners prevail in the case of Murr v. Wisconsin, currently before the Supreme Court, the government will no longer be able to avoid paying compensation for a taking merely because the owner of the parcel of land in question also happens to own the plot next door. To most people - myself included, that seems like a clear win for property rights. But leading land use scholar Roderick Hills disagrees.feedback

Nathaniel Persily

The Senate confirmation process for Supreme Court justices has always been cabined by norms of behavior and unwritten rules. With the failure even to have a hearing on Garland, the norms have all gone out the window. The Democrats now feel emboldened to try anything.feedback

Robert C. Post

That's not what people want to hear when they want a Supreme Court justice to be confirmed. What they want to hear is, I want to serve justice. I want to serve the American people. I want to protect the Constitution, not 'I want to gratify my taste for difficult legal problems.feedback

Will Baude

One of my favorite law review articles in recent years is Rick Pildes’s “Institutional Formalism and Realism in Constitutional and Public Law, ” published in the Supreme Court Review in 2014. The basic observation is that when public law doctrine confronts a government institution, it has to decide whether to treat that institution as more or less “a black box, ” or whether to instead probe into how that institution is actually functioning as the moment and whether or not the court approves of it.feedback

Timothy Busch

We were headed down a path that was pretty dark with a Supreme Court decision redefining marriage. In the early weeks of this administration more has been done to address the biggest tragedy, the biggest catastrophe, and that is abortion. More has been done to benefit the causes of life, which is more important than anything we have in our society … Everything else is trumped by this issue of life.feedback

Donald J. Trump

We are going to take our case as far as it needs to go, even to the Supreme Court. We are going to win. I will not stop fighting for the safety of you and your families. Not today, not ever. We're going to win it. We are going to win it. We are going to apply common sense. We are never quitting and we are never going away.feedback

Donald J. Trump

This is an unprecedented judicial overreach. You don't think this was done by a judge for a political reason, no? This decision makes us look weak. We're going to fight this terrible decision all the way to the Supreme Court. We're going to win. We're going to keep our citizens safe, believe me. Wire-tap covers a lot of different things. I think you're going to find some very interesting items coming to the forefront over the next two weeks.feedback

Martin Oliver - Wright Hassall

Heather is naturally very disappointed with the outcome of the Supreme Court judgment. She is a hard-working mother who brought a claim to seek reasonable financial provision from her mother's estate under legislation which has been around for over 80 years. Some of the judges have found that the current law is unsatisfactory and this will no doubt raise broader questions in the future. Heather has never wanted to be in the limelight or to be at the centre of a legal debate which polarises public opinion.feedback

Lucio Adolfo

At this point, only the Supreme Court can decide on this case.feedback

Mitch McConnell

I hope colleagues on both sides will show him the fair consideration he deserves, the same fair consideration we showed to all four of the Supreme Court nominees of Presidents Obama and Clinton after they were first elected – a respectful hearing followed by an up-or-down vote.feedback

Matt Witt

His opposition to death with dignity should disqualify him from the Supreme Court.feedback

Joshua Block - American Civil Liberties Union

While we're disappointed that the Supreme Court will not be hearing Gavin's case this term, the overwhelming level of support shown for Gavin and trans students by people across the country throughout this process shows that the American people have already moved in the right direction and that the rights of trans people cannot be ignored.feedback

Kevin Johnson

Now it's very clear that some of those provisions apply to immigrants in the U.S. The Supreme Court has made very clear that as long as you're in the U.S., you have a right to due process and hearing. That doesn't mean you can't be removed. But you have the ability to retain counsel. The more of those ties you have, and the deeper your rights are.feedback

Todd C. Peppers

He did not serve as an editor on The Harvard Law Review. Moreover, he 'only' graduated cum laude – which suggests that his grades might not have been as high as the typical Supreme Court law clerk.feedback

Lindsay Robertson

Usually tribes have their own appellate process, and then – and this surprises a lot of people – there is no appeal from a tribal supreme court.feedback

Jeff Sessions

In America, the Supreme Court and the American people believe no one is above the law. The president has gotten himself into this fix that is very serious.feedback

Oystein Storrvik

This is the outcome we were expecting, and we have decided to appeal. First, we will try the Supreme Court and if that does not work, we will try the European Court of Human Rights. We will follow our plan. Our strategy was to achieve a change, so that our plan.feedback

Michael Steinberg - American Civil Liberties Union

We're thrilled that the Supreme Court has torn down unfair barriers faced by students who seek to vindicate their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.feedback

Stacy Fry

I saw with my own eyes how Wonder helped my daughter grow more self-reliant and confident. We are thankful that the Supreme Court has clarified that schools cannot treat children with disabilities differently or stand in the way of their desired independence.feedback

Sean Spicer

I think there will be further guidance coming from DOJ in particular with respect to not just the executive order but also the case that's in front of the Supreme Court. The president has maintained for a long time that this is a states' rights issue and not one for the federal government. So while there will be further guidance coming out, I think that all you have to do is look at what the president's view has been for a long time: that this is not something the federal government should be involved in. This is a states' rights issue.feedback

Sean Spicer

That's an issue that the Department of Justice the Department of Education are addressing, and I think there will be further guidance coming from [Justice Department] in particular, with respect to not just the executive order but the case that's in front of the Supreme Court. The president has maintained for a long time that this is a state's right issue and not one for the federal government. So while there will be further guidance coming out this, I think that all you need to do is look at what the president's view has been for a long time.feedback

Blake Rocap

The Supreme Court called them out on that. Because the avenue of lying about what is good women's health and safety is now foreclosed to them, they're now having to turn to other methods to make operating a practice difficult if not almost impossible.feedback

Claire McCaskill

The questions are so numerous and it's really hard to get past them and begin to look infrastructure or tax reform or even confirming a Supreme Court nominee.feedback

Keith Whittington

Constitutional crises arise out of the failure, or strong risk of failure, of a constitution to perform its central functions. If the president were really to contemplate ignoring a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, we'd be in nearly uncharted waters.feedback

Bob Ferguson

That Noah was so young and had never argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court – or even the state Supreme Court – did not go unnoticed by many folks in my office.feedback

Carol Tobias - National Right to Life

I don't think they're going to be well-received at the Supreme Court for all kinds of reasons, but mainly because this is a reasonable decision. The precedents are there, they've weighed the issues, and even Clifton signed it.feedback

Richard Blumenthal

Behind closed doors, Judge Gorsuch expressed disappointment with President Trump's attacks on the judiciary, but a Supreme Court Justice must prove that he has the courage and independence to stand up to a President in public. I asked Judge Gorsuch to make that statement publicly, and he declined. If he wants the American people to believe that he is truly independent, Judge Gorsuch must tell them in no uncertain terms that President Trump's attacks are not just disappointing – they are abhorrent and destructive to our Constitutional system – and he must condemn them publicly.feedback

Rebecca Patterson

I think [what's keeping stocks afloat is] earnings and a dose of optimism about what policies we're going to get from this administration. But anything we see that derails [those policies], a focus on the Supreme Court or Obamacare, that takes us away from stimulus for an extended period [could make the market] a little vulnerable to at least a tactical pullback. If you come out of that day and the rhetoric is more aggressive, non-consensus building, I think people will get more worried about this protectionist rhetoric.feedback

Jeff Davis - Navy

President Ghani affirmed his commitment to reforms, especially eliminating corruption, and highlighted the importance of a sustained US-Afghan relationship for the security of Afghanistan and the region. In light of the recent attacks, including today's attack against the Afghan Supreme Court, Secretary Mattis offered his condolences for the sacrifices of the Afghan people and commended President Ghani's unwavering commitment in the face of the enemy.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

The towering judges that have served in this particular seat on the Supreme Court, including Antonin Scalia and Robert Jackson, are much in my mind at this moment.feedback

Chuck Schumer

He is clearly a smart and capable man who loves being a judge. But his nomination comes at a perilous time in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches. The bar for a Supreme Court nominee to prove they can be independent has never, never been higher. He would have been no more biased than any of the justices sitting on the court. The judge today avoided answers like the plague.feedback

Yael Ronon

Under Israeli Constitutional law, Israeli law takes precedence over international law. So, arguing on the basis of international law may be not a very strong argument before the Supreme Court. That does not mean that it's not a violation, it just means that under the procedures of this Supreme Court that may not be a relevant argument. So the bill may pass the scrutiny of the Supreme Court while still being the violation of Israeli and international law.feedback

Jim Cramer

And I think that when you have such a uniform protest and then you sit down, I mean, maybe this was the first example of there could be a compromise. I don't think this is going to be as left, right as people think. I think that there are people in the Supreme Court ... who are Republican who really aren't kind of backing the federal court system.feedback

Chuck Schumer

With each action testing the Constitution, and each personal attack on a judge, President Trump raises the bar even higher for Judge Gorsuch's nomination to serve on the Supreme Court. His ability to be an independent check will be front and center throughout the confirmation process.feedback

Mike Pence

Rest assured, we will work with the Senate leadership to ensure that Judge Gorsuch gets an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor – one way or the other. This seat does not belong to any party or any ideology or any interest group. This seat on the Supreme Court belongs to the American people, and the American people deserve a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.feedback

Bob Ferguson

The Constitution prevailed today. No one is above the law – not even the President. It's our president's duty to honor this ruling and I'll make sure he does. I'm prepared for this case to go all the way to the Supreme Court whichever way the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals goes. It's a case of that magnitude, it's a case that frankly I think will ultimately end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, so that would not surprise me one way or the other.feedback

Bob Ferguson

I firmly believe that no one is above the law, however, and I have a duty to protect all Washingtonians from unlawful actions that violate the Constitution. I will continue this fight – all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary – to uphold the rule of law.feedback

Rachel Tiven

We absolutely must not confirm a Supreme Court nominee who has ruled that the religious beliefs of employers can trump the law.feedback

Chad Griffin

[Trump] has nominated Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, fulfilling his campaign promise to nominate a justice in the mold of Antonin Scalia, one of the most vehemently anti-LGBTQ justices to ever sit on the court who once went so far as to compare gay people to murderers.feedback

Chad Griffin

We cannot afford a justice who will roll back our rights. The Supreme Court has played a central role in advancing the promise of equality for LGBTQ Americans, and Judge Gorsuch's anti-equality record -- from opposing crucial medical treatment for a transgender person to supporting a license to discriminate for private corporations -- make him unfit to sit on the nation's highest court. We are talking about religious exemptions and not the validity of Obergefell, and that tells us something.feedback

Chuck Schumer

This Supreme Court will be tried in ways that few courts have been tested since the earliest days of the Republic.feedback

George Saravelos - Deutsche Bank

First, Trump's Fed appointments will ultimately determine the fate of 'dollar policy' this year. For all the attention on recent comments on exchange rates, a Trump Fed's hawkish or dovish leanings will matter much more. Second, news on Fed appointments could come quicker than the market assumes. Now that the Supreme Court nomination is out of the way, the Fed may be next. The next Fed Chair could easily be placed in one of the two vacant seats even if a chairmanship appointment is left for later.feedback

Elizabeth Warren

President Trump had the chance to select a consensus nominee to the Supreme Court. To the surprise of absolutely nobody, he failed that test. Instead, he carried out his public promise to select a nominee from a list drawn up by far right activist groups that were financed by big business interests.feedback

Donald J. Trump

Nancy Pelosi and Fake Tears Chuck Schumer held a rally at the steps of The Supreme Court and mic did not work (a mess) - just like Dem party! I don't see him as a crier.feedback

Joe Manchin

I think it should be 60 votes for our Supreme Court. I think at the highest court of the land it should be where we're coming together as Americans, not continue to divide us. And with that being said, let's give the man a chance. Talk to him.feedback

Chuck Schumer

The Senate must insist upon 60 votes for any Supreme Court nominee, a bar that was met by each of President Obama's nominees. The burden is on Judge Neil Gorsuch to prove himself to be within the legal mainstream and, in this new era, willing to vigorously defend the Constitution from abuses of the Executive branch and protect the constitutionally enshrined rights of all Americans. Given his record, I have very serious doubts about Judge Gorsuch's ability to meet this standard.feedback

Nancy Pelosi

After the relentless contempt for women that candidate Trump displayed throughout his campaign, it is no surprise that President Trump intends to place someone hostile to women's rights on the Supreme Court. In the Hobby Lobby case, Judge Neil Gorsuch revealed his eagerness to single out women's health for discrimination and enable employers to meddle in their workers' most intimate health decisions.feedback

Bob Doll - Nuveen Asset Management

He's quickly going to change the subject to the Supreme Court nominee, so I think the noise will move from the immigration thing to the Supreme Court thing. It'll fade when we have something new to talk about. Too many people thought we had a Republican president, a Republican House, Republican Senate and they were going to all get along peachy keen … but it's going to be bumpy, because they're not all going to see the ball the same way. I think it's going to be inconsistent, and it will come back to is the economy OK and are earnings OK? If they are, the market will be OK.feedback

Donald J. Trump

Nancy Pelosi and Fake Tears Chuck Schumer held a rally at the steps of The Supreme Court and mic did not work (a mess)-just like Dem party! When will the Democrats give us our Attorney General and rest of Cabinet! They should be ashamed of themselves! No wonder D.C. doesn't work!feedback

Ed Whelan - National Review

If you are alarmed, I suppose that you also would have been suspicious of this fellow named Antonin Scalia, whom President Carter's liberal White House counsel, Lloyd Cutler, testified in favor of at his Supreme Court confirmation hearing in 1986.feedback

Donald J. Trump

I have made my decision on who I will nominate for The United States Supreme Court. It will be announced live on Tuesday at 8:00 P.M. (W.H.). I think the person I pick will be big, big. I think people are going to love it. I think evangelicals, Christians will love my pick. And will be represented very fairly.feedback

Jonathan Martin

But the fury is also spurring liberal voters to demand uncompromising confrontation and resistance from their elected officials to a president they believe poses an existential threat to the country. The Democrats' increasingly assertive base wants the party's leaders to eschew any cooperation with Mr. Trump: They are already expressing rage at some senators for confirming the president's cabinet appointees, and for their willingness to allow a vote on his pick for a vacant Supreme Court seat.feedback

Donald J. Trump

That's not fair to the man. I will be making my Supreme Court pick on Thursday of next week. Thank you! We have outstanding candidates and we will pick a truly great Supreme Court justice. The answer is yes. I don't want to say that, you're going to see on Thursday. I'll be making my decision this week, and we'll be announcing next week.feedback

Donald J. Trump

Big day planned on NATIONAL SECURITY tomorrow. Among many other things, we will build the wall! We will pick a truly great Supreme Court justice. Sometime next week. Probably making my decision this week, we'll be announcing next week. We have outstanding candidates. I think the people of this country did not want to see what was happening with the Supreme Court, so I think it was a very, very big decision as to why I was elected.feedback

Donald J. Trump

From now we are going to start making pipelines in the United States. We will pick a truly great Supreme Court justice. Probably making my decision this week, we'll be announcing next week.feedback

Donald J. Trump

A photo delivered yesterday that will be displayed in the upper/lower press hall. Thank you Abbas! Let's start building. We have some outstanding candidates. And we'll pick a truly great Supreme Court justice.feedback

David Allen Green - Preiskel

The appeal decision is, however, a victory for the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and a vindication of an independent judiciary. The Supreme Court has told the government to get back into its box: A proper process has to be followed.feedback

Hussein Sayed

Sterling has appreciated by more than 400 pips versus the dollar since May delivered her Brexit speech last Tuesday, and we are likely to see another leg higher if the U.K.'s supreme court voted in favour of the parliament. However, this wouldn't mean that Brexit won't come into action, it's just going to slow the process and add a few more complexities. I would consider selling a rally (in the pound) then buying the dips.feedback

Chris Turner - ING Financial Markets

While the Supreme Court ruling that the parliament needs to approve Article 50 is probably in the price, should the Supreme Court (also) rule that parliament needs a say in the exit strategy details, sterling could get a further lift. We are very bearish on sterling/dollar this quarter, but are wary that this week could see a correction into the $1.25-26 region.feedback

Larissa Brunner - Oxford Analytica

The Supreme Court will be keen to deliver a unanimous verdict due to the political significance of the case, which means that it will probably seek to find the lowest common denominator. However, a stronger ruling could have implications for the government's powers and those of the devolved parliaments.feedback

Bob Doll - Nuveen Asset Management

Wall Street love[s] the idea that we have a pro-growth president, but we had a press conference, we had an inaugural address, and he really didn't talk about those issues, and I think that's caused a little bit of a sag. I think the market's saying, I made a list: trade deals, tax cuts, tax reform, repatriation, Obamacare, Supreme Court, immigration, ISIS, fight the press, infrastructure. What are your three most important ones? What are you going tackle first? You can't do them all.feedback

David Victor

The Supreme Court will get much of the attention but the federal courts pose a much more immediate opportunity.feedback

Tony Lomas - PricewaterhouseCoopers

If all the legal proceedings go to the Supreme Court then the final judgment will not be handed until 2020 or 2021. Of course the parties could stop battling before then when more judgments come in and reach a settlement before that date.feedback

Tony Lomas - PricewaterhouseCoopers

Subject to the Supreme Court judgment, the currency conversion claims have built up to £2bn or more given the weakness of the pound and the basic statutory interest itself is £5bn. There are scenarios in which the surplus might only be in the region of £7bn or so, meaning that they could eat it all up before subordinated loanholder claims are paid.feedback

Robert Redford

A few years ago, there was a moment when politics and the Supreme Court was not very kind to Al. I think what they did drove him away from politics, but it drove him toward film and I think that's to our benefit ... he could work both sides of the street, so to speak, and he has and he's done it beautifully.feedback

Brenda Jones

His absence at that time was also a form of dissent. He did not believe [that] the outcome of that election, including the controversies around the results in Florida and the unprecedented intervention of the U.S. Supreme Court, reflected a free, fair and open democratic process.feedback

Rodrigo Duterte

I will tell you now, if I have to declare martial law, I will declare it … to preserve my nation, period. I don't care about the Supreme Court … the right to preserve one's life and my nation transcends everything else … nobody can stop me.feedback

Daniel Clifton

Trump wants to move quickly on several key items – Obamacare repeal, tax reform, the Supreme Court nominee, the wall funding and infrastructure. He will have to use the inauguration speech when he has the bully pulpit to make the case these should get done, and they should get done quickly. Congress does not move at a very fast pace. Trump moves, from the business world, at a fast pace.feedback

Donald J. Trump

So, as you know, I have a list of 20. I've gone through them. We've met with numerous candidates. They were outstanding in every case ... I'll be making the decision on who we will put up for justice of the United States Supreme Court, a replacement for the great, great Justice (Antonin) Scalia. That will be probably within two weeks of the 20th (of January). So within about two weeks, probably the second week.feedback

Prashant Bhushan

It is sad and unfortunate that the Supreme Court dismissed my plea.feedback

Rick Fradette

Wal-Mart's posture has been that it will fight this to the end. We'll see what the New Hampshire Supreme Court has to say.feedback

Marc Chandler - Brown Brothers Harriman

The most important thing now is the [U.K.] Supreme Court decision, and that will be out in the next two to three weeks.feedback

Mitch McConnell

Apparently there's yet a new standard now, which is to not confirm a Supreme Court nominee at all. I think that's something the American people simply will not tolerate, and we'll be looking forward to receiving a Supreme Court nomination and moving forward on it.feedback

Chuck Schumer

Absolutely., We are not going to make it easy for them to pick a Supreme Court justice. It's hard for me to imagine a nominee that Donald Trump would choose that would get Republican support that we [Democrats] could support.'.feedback

Martin Arnold

While we feel the GBP is at its structural nadir, we expect some volatility will accompany the Supreme Court decision. Nonetheless, we expect the Pound to benefit in 2017. The Euro is likely to weaken as the ECB stays its current stimulatory course.feedback

Nikki Madsen

We're both under threat at the state and national level. With a Republican president, Republican-majority legislature and the potential for multiple Supreme Court appointments, in some ways we're entering uncharted territory.feedback

Sharon Day - Republican National Committee

With 52 seats in the U.S. Senate, we are excited for Republicans to confirm a conservative Supreme Court justice and begin working with President-elect Trump to pass an agenda of change for the American people. Whether it's winning the White House, Congress, or state-level races, Republicans have much to celebrate this year, and the RNC is ready to get to work to 'Make America Great Again.feedback

Talia Sasson

The prime minister will come out looking good to his supporters once again -- after all, (it will be seen that) he tried to legalize the theft of lands in the West Bank, and it was the Supreme Court that got in his way.feedback

Michal Laskowski

The supreme court ... rejects the request for annulment. (It) has been deemed groundless.feedback

James Eadie

If the Supreme Court decides against our arguments here then the solution in legal terms is a one-line act.feedback

David Neuberger

The Supreme Court exists to decide points of law. [W]ider political questions are not the subject of this appeal. This appeal is concerned with legal issues, and as judges, our duty is to consider those issues impartially.feedback

Gabe Galanda

With this alignment in the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court, we should be concerned about erosion of self determination, if not a return to termination.feedback

Kong Srim

The Supreme Court Chamber affirms the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the trial chamber on both Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan. The Supreme Court orders that Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan remain in custody.feedback

Richard Hasen

This is a big victory for those who want to see courts rein in partisan gerrymandering. But it is anybody's guess what happens to this when it gets to the Supreme Court.feedback

Donald J. Trump

It's law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean, it's done. … These cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They've been settled. And I'm fine with that.feedback

Elizabeth Wydra

We were hoping we'd be looking forward to a progressive majority on the Supreme Court. After the election results, there is a new reality.feedback

Eugene Dickerson

I think appointment of Supreme Court really was the driving force behind Donald Trump carrying Elliott County.feedback

Elizabeth Warren

He won – and now Latino and Muslim-American children are worried about what will happen to their families. LGBT couples are worried that their marriages could be dissolved by a Trump-Pence Supreme Court. Women are worried that their access to desperately needed health services will disappear. Millions of people in this country are worried, deeply worried. And they are right to be worried.feedback

Roger Wicker

I think he has a mandate to do what he campaigned on, to repeal and replace ObamaCare, to put constitutional scholars on the Supreme Court. I liked what he said last night about rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. I think it will be a partnership, and we all understand our role.feedback

Debra Sindler

I would have never voted for Hillary. And I voted for Donald Trump because I'm concerned about the Supreme Court.feedback

Warren Urda

I believe that person will select the next four Supreme Court justices and that will affect us for the next 50 years, not just for the next four years.feedback

Nan Aron

It's a pivotal moment, given the current makeup of the Supreme Court. I think we can safely assume that no matter who she does nominate, and what the makeup of the Senate is, it will be an epic battle.feedback

Richard Burr

If Hillary becomes president, I'm going to do everything I can do to make sure that four years from now, we're still going to have an opening on the Supreme Court.feedback

Barack Obama

Pat Toomey won't tell Pennsylvania voters where he stands on Donald Trump, trying instead to have it both ways by telling different people what he thinks they want to hear. That's not courage. Voting to shut down the government and against bills to close the terrorist gun loophole isn't courage. And playing politics with the Supreme Court isn't courage.feedback

Nick Barber

It's a very strong judgment. It's a unanimous judgment and it's a judgment by three of the most senior judges at that level you could hope to get. So if I was the government, I wouldn't be optimistic about the Supreme Court reaching a different view.feedback

Fawad Khan

Basically, the market was looking for some clarity around this political impasse; fortunately the Supreme Court provided a face-saver by giving a middle-ground for both the PTI and the government.feedback

Troy Andersen

We are grateful that the Supreme Court has granted the school board's petition in this difficult case. The board looks forward to explaining to the court that its restroom and locker room policy carefully balances the interests of all students and parents in the Gloucester County school system.feedback

Samuel Issacharoff

Because of the Supreme Court case related to Bill Clinton, there's no automatic shield for the president from civil action. If he were president and called to testify and hostilities break out in the Middle East a court would probably postpone – but of course it's a major dislocation to be going through these civil trials while he's running an administration.feedback

Denise Houston

I'm leaning slightly towards Trump based on Supreme Court decisions, national security, pro-life. Mainly for what the party stands for, not as much the candidate.feedback

Tim Wu

The antitrust system as it stands is focused on prices to consumers, innovation and efficiencies. That reflects the triumph of the University of Chicago school of economics. But there's an older tradition, embodied by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, that says a concentration of too much power in too few hands is bad for democracy and bad for consumers.feedback

Donald J. Trump

We need a Supreme Court that, in my opinion, is going to uphold the Second Amendment – and all amendments – but the Second Amendment, which is under absolute siege.feedback

Andrew E. Sabin

I'd like to keep a Republican House, and Republican Senate and a conservative Supreme Court. Trump comes with the package to do that.feedback

Jason Perry

There are core issues that are bigger than Donald Trump, Issues like the next Supreme Court nominee.feedback

Christopher Carani

The key here for the Supreme Court is to try and strike a balance that doesn't stifle competition but also spurs innovation.feedback

Jack Welch - General Electric

Like Republican message on Economy, Security and Supreme Court...Unfortunately, wrong messenger...Party must change nominee now.feedback

Sergio Praca

This is a clear sign that neither the Supreme Court nor federal prosecutors are doing anything to try to protect the PMDB simply because they are now in power.feedback

Stephen Ascher - Jenner & Block

I do think clarity is particularly important in this context, and right now there is a lack of clarity. The Supreme Court has the opportunity now to clean that up.feedback

Donald J. Trump

This list is definitive and I will choose only from it in picking future justices of the United States Supreme Court.feedback

Poonam Muttreja

We welcome the Supreme Court judgement which we consider a landmark one. Providing quality services to and upholding the dignity of women will now be placed strongly on the national agenda.feedback

Wu Shicun

The Mutual Defence Treaty between the US and the Philippines is a legally binding document approved by the Philippine Supreme Court and a few words from Duterte cannot stop that deep military engagement with the US, which obviously wants to maintain and even boost its geopolitical sway in the region.feedback

Bill Schuette

It is my duty to defend Michigan's laws, in this case a law that stands in 40 other states. Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken and I will respect that decision.feedback

Patrick Leahy

The Senate is returning from the longest recess in nearly half a century, and perhaps the Republican leadership was hoping that Americans had forgotten about the unprecedented obstruction of a Supreme Court nominee. But I can assure you that Americans – and certainly Vermonters – have not forgotten.feedback

Ulrich Roux

In my experience over the years, the Supreme Court of Appeal has placed a lot of confidence in our High Courts, and I must say, I would be surprised if they had to accept the petition.feedback

William Sanchez - Department of Justice

I kind of had to deal with that ... I think she would be better at appointing a new Supreme Court justice than Trump. She would look at it rationally, who is a good person for this country. Trump would rely on some irrational (criteria).feedback

Harry M. Reid

They spend a lot of time these Republicans, spending a lot of energy trying to separate themselves from Donald Trump. But as long as they're holding a Supreme Court seat open for him, they're his minions. They're his enablers. We're going to ensure that every American knows that as long as Senate Republicans are fighting to let Trump shape the Supreme Court for a generation or more, there's no daylight between them and Trump.feedback

Donald J. Trump

If Hillary Clinton gets elected, I think she's going to decimate the Second Amendment, if not abolish it. And she'll do that through judges, through the justices of the Supreme Court. But the Second Amendment people have tremendous power because they are so united.feedback

Zaheena Rasheed

This is a final push to shut down the remaining media outlets. We have fought really hard. We are not giving up. We are going to contest the bill at the Supreme Court on its constitutionality.feedback

Raymond Lesniak

We do have two judges dissenting, and we certainly will take a shot at the Supreme Court.feedback

Jill Stein

We got women's right to choose under that Supreme Court by standing up and refusing to take no for an answer. We see justices change over time, and some of the most progressive judges were appointed by conservatives. So the question is, are we going to throw ourselves over the cliff here? Would you take climate change so that you can have abortion rights?feedback

Chris Cox - National Rifle Association

Voting for Hillary Clinton – or not voting – is simply not an option. Conservatives could lose the Supreme Court for "40 years" if she wins.feedback

Josh Earnest

Now, despite Chief Judge Garland's extraordinary qualifications, Republicans in the Senate have refused to do their job, and Chief Judge Garland's nomination has now been pending longer than any Supreme Court nominee in history who's nomination was not otherwise withdrawn.feedback

Harry M. Reid

Despite his outstanding record and qualifications, Republicans have obstructed Judge Garland's nomination in a way faced by no other Supreme Court nominee in our nation's history.feedback

Donald J. Trump

Justice Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements about me. Her mind is shot–resign! Is Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg going to apologize to me for her misconduct? Big mistake by an incompetent judge!feedback

Donald J. Trump

I think it's highly inappropriate that a United States Supreme Court judge gets involved in a political campaign, frankly. I think it's a disgrace to the court and I think she should apologize to the court. I couldn't believe it when I saw it. … It's so beneath the court for her to be making statements like that. It only energizes my base even more. And I would hope that she would get off the court as soon as possible.feedback

Ken Falk - American Civil Liberties Union

We are extremely pleased that Indiana's attempt to violate women's basic rights has been thwarted. This law attempted to do exactly what Supreme Court precedent said could not be done: invade a woman's privacy rights by preventing her from deciding whether to obtain a pre-viability abortion.feedback