Supreme Court

facebook_page
twitter_page

Last quote about Supreme Court

Johnny Koremenos - Department of Justice
We are evaluating the 2-1 decision from the court. We anticipate seeking review by the entire 7th Circuit or the United States Supreme Court and hope that today's erroneous decision will be reversed. We continue to send our condolences to the Halbach family as they have to suffer through another attempt by Mr. Dassey to re-litigate his guilty verdict and sentence.feedback
share this quote
Jun 22 2017
In this page you'll find all points of view published about Supreme Court. You'll find 429 quotes on this page. You can filter them by date and by a person’s name. The 4 people who have been quoted more about Supreme Court are: Chuck Schumer, Neil Gorsuch, Mitch McConnell and Jennifer Rubin. Chuck Schumer specifically said: “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.”.
Automatically powered by Storyzy
Take our quote verification challenge and find out !

All quotes about Supreme Court

Lisa S. Blatt

The team is thrilled with today's unanimous decision as it resolves the Redskins' long-standing dispute with the government. The Supreme Court vindicated the team's position that the First Amendment blocks the government from denying or canceling a trademark registration based on the government's opinion.feedback

Simon Tam

After an excruciating legal battle that has spanned nearly eight years, we're beyond humbled and thrilled to have won this case at the Supreme Court. This journey has always been much bigger than our band: it's been about the rights of all marginalised communities to determine what's best for ourselves. We found the Trademark Office justifying the denial of rights to people based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, and political views, simply because they disagreed with the message of these groups.feedback

Joseph Uscinski

But if you control the Supreme Court, the Senate, the House, and the White House, you can't pull that. Just like how Hillary Clinton can't, in 1998, say her husband's troubles are due to a vast right-wing conspiracy.feedback

Zeke Williams

Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent he should apply the traditional injunction test to determine exactly what may occur - or not - during additional environmental analysis.feedback

Brian Coy

We are pleased to put Mr. Plowman's needless, wasteful and currently moot lawsuit to rest. Nothing about the old database relates to the governor's current individualized process, which the Virginia Supreme Court has upheld, and which has successfully restored over 156,000 ex-felons' rights. The governor remains committed to restoration of civil rights and hopes that Republicans will finally accept that giving people who have served their time a voice in their society is the right thing to do.feedback

Sarah Isgur Flores

We have asked the Supreme Court to hear this important case and are confident that President Trump's executive order is well within his lawful authority to keep the nation safe and protect our communities from terrorism.feedback

Sean Spicer

I think we can all attest that these are very dangerous times and we need every available tool at our disposal to prevent terrorists from entering the United States and committing acts of bloodshed and violence. We continue to be confident that the president's executive order to protect this country is fully lawful and ultimately will be upheld by the Supreme Court.feedback

Kate Shaw

It's a genuinely difficult question. This is not a question that the Supreme Court has resolved.feedback

Leonie Brinkema

Just as the Supreme Court has held that 'the world is not made brand new every morning,' a person is not made brand new simply by taking the oath of office.feedback

Lee Saunders - AFL-CIO

The corporate C.E.O.s behind this case want to take away the freedom of working people to join together in a strong union and negotiate a fair return on their work. The rich and powerful interests behind this case are asking the Supreme Court to further rig the rules against working people and deny them the freedom to join together in a strong union to provide for their families, protect their communities and lift up the concerns of all working families.feedback

Phil Telfeyan

The Supreme Court has spoken clearly, but ultimately it's a question of compliance around the country. Ultimately it's up to the judges.feedback

Phil Hirschkop

When a law is based on race, it is immediately suspect and the burden is shifted to the state to show there is a compelling interest to have that sort of racial differentiation. The country was ready, the Supreme Court was ready ... They were going to do the right thing.feedback

Steve Kohn

The constitutional right to go to the press with information on matters of public concern, as long as you're not doing it in a way that will bring out classified information, the reason why that is protected constitutionally is that the courts – including the U.S. Supreme Court – have ruled that the public has a constitutional right to hear this information.feedback

Neil Richards

And the outcome will be very unclear. Under the argument, they should not be excluded from a public forum and if they are that is suppression of speech. But just because you are protesting doesn't mean a government official has to listen. Arguably, and very arguably hurling expletives at the President could fall under manner restriction, but the Supreme Court has said that one man's profanity is another man's lyric. Perhaps there may be some additional power in a public forum to make this nice but that's really murky.feedback

Betsy DeVos

On areas where the law is unsettled, this department is not going to be issuing decrees. That is a matter for Congress and the courts to settle. On areas of unsettled law, Congress and the Supreme Court has to decide. Schools that recieve federal funds will follow federal law. Sir, that's now what I said. Discrimination in any way is wrong. I don't support such discrimination in any form.feedback

Peter Margulies

To the extent that Trump is sort of a bull in a china shop, that might make the Supreme Court nervous.feedback

Donald J. Trump

The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C. The Justice Dept. should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered down Travel Ban before the Supreme Court - & seek much tougher version! In any event, we are EXTREME VETTING people coming into the U.S. in order to help keep our country safe. The courts are slow and political! People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!feedback

Donald J. Trump

People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN! The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C. The Justice Dept. should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered down Travel Ban before the Supreme Court – & seek much tougher version! Whatever the United States can do to help out in London and the U. K., we will be there – WE ARE WITH YOU. GOD BLESS!feedback

George Conway

These tweets may make some ppl (people) feel better, but they certainly won't help OSG (Office of the Solicitor General) get 5 votes in SCOTUS, (Supreme Court of the United States) which is what actually matters. Sad.feedback

Donald J. Trump

People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN! Pathetic excuse by London mayor Sadiq Khan, who had to think fast on his 'no reason to be alarmed' statement. [Mainsteam media] is working hard to sell it! The Justice Dept should have stayed with the original travel ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to [supreme court]. The Justice Dept should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered down travel ban before the supreme court – and seek much tougher version.feedback

Nathan Freed Wessler - American Civil Liberties Union

Because cell phone location records can reveal countless private details of our lives, police should only be able to access them by getting a warrant based on probable cause. The time has come for the Supreme Court to make clear that the longstanding protections of the Fourth Amendment apply with undiminished force to these kinds of sensitive digital records.feedback

Donald J. Trump

The Justice Depart. should have stayed wth the original Travel ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to the S.C. The Justice Department should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered down Travel Ban before the Supreme Court - & seek much tougher version! In any event we are EXTREME VETTING people coming into the U.S. in order to help keep our country safe. The courts are slow and political. People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!feedback

Omar Jadwat - American Civil Liberties Union

This is different from the kind of case you would expect the Supreme Court to grant the extraordinary relief of a stay, because of the lack of any demonstrable urgency or harm and because the law and the facts are on our side.feedback

Sarah Isgur Flores

We have asked the Supreme Court to hear this important case and are confident that President Trump's executive order is well within his lawful authority to keep the Nation safe and protect our communities from terrorism, . The president is not required to admit people from countries that sponsor or shelter terrorism, until he determines that they can be properly vetted and do not pose a security risk to the United States.feedback

Jake Schmidt - Natural Resources Defense Council

There's no Supreme Court of the world, so there's a limit to what you can do, and so the enforcement provisions of the Paris agreement are based upon reporting on progress toward their targets, scrutiny by an international body of experts, and peer pressure to play nice.feedback

Paul V. Niemeyer

The Supreme Court surely will shudder at the majority's adoption of this new rule that has no limits or bounds – one that transforms the majority's criticisms of a candidate's various campaign statements into a constitutional violation.feedback

Freda Levenson - American Civil Liberties Union

We are confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the correct decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and will ultimately ensure that eligible Ohio voters may not be stricken from the rolls.feedback

Shah Ahmad Shafi

It was not an issue whether Themis would be in front of the Supreme Court or at the back side of the Supreme Court. The issue was whether Themis would exist or not, whether this symbol would be removed from Bangladesh forever.feedback

Annie Laurie Gaylor

The Supreme Court has spoken directly on this type of public school indoctrination and has ruled that public schools may not engage in it. Religion in schools builds walls between children and leads to ostracism of minorities – as experienced by our plaintiff Elizabeth Deal, who had to remove her child from the school.feedback

Jeff Sessions

The Department of Justice strongly disagrees with the decision of the divided court, which blocks the president's efforts to strengthen this country's national security. This Department of Justice will continue to vigorously defend the power and duty of the executive branch to protect the people of this country from danger, and will seek review of this case in the U.S. Supreme Court.feedback

Roger Gregory

The question for this Court, distilled to its essential form, is whether the Constitution, as the Supreme Court declared in Ex parte Milligan, remains 'a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace'. And if so, whether it protects Plaintiffs' right to challenge an Executive Order that in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.feedback

Artur Yemelianov

The main goal was achieved - as soon as I was taken out of the running in the competition (for the Supreme Court). She's a wealthy woman, she has this money, she earns as she did before. In order to regularly fly to see my daughter, I need to have the necessary money. My salary is not enough for this. I can't tell you what kind of profits there were (at her businesses), but it's a fact that none of them had zero income.feedback

Ajit Pai - FCC

We are going to take the facts that we find and we are going to apply the law as it's been set out by the Supreme Court and other courts and we'll take the appropriate action.feedback

Roy Cooper

North Carolina voters deserve a level playing field and fair elections, and I'm glad the Supreme Court agrees. The North Carolina Republican legislature tried to rig Congressional elections by drawing unconstitutional districts that discriminated against African Americans, and that's wrong.feedback

Steven Mnuchin

The Venezuelan people are suffering from a collapsing economy brought about by their government's mismanagement and corruption. Members of the country's Supreme Court of Justice have exacerbated the situation by consistently interfering with the legislative branche's authority. By imposing these targeted sanctions, the United States is supporting the Venezuelan people in their efforts to protect and advance democratic governance in their country.feedback

William J. Howell

The clerk's actions were consistent with past practice under both Republican and Democrat speakers with both Republican and Democrat governors over the past 21 years. The (state) Supreme Court is abundantly clear about the limits of the governor's line-item veto authority and there is no doubt Governor McAuliffe exceeded that authority.feedback

Ann Durkin Keating

In 1916, the US supreme court, in Buchanan v Warley, ruled racial zoning was unconstitutional. Nevertheless, many real estate developers utilised restrictive covenants to maintain racial exclusion … Racial restrictive covenants excluded certain groups of people (most often African Americans, but also Jews, Catholics and other groups depending on the locale) from ever owning or renting the property.feedback

Kris Warner

I expect nothing short of someone beyond reproach and (it) will be exactly what the country needs. Look at his Supreme Court pick. Very impressed with that, and I would expect him to do the same with the FBI.feedback

Jameka Evans

It's very, very troubling with the levels of violence against the L.G.B.T. community to see the West Virginia Supreme Court foreclose this option for victims and prosecutors.feedback

John Kennedy

I'd like to take it from the angle of what's going to happen to Mr. Black, if anything can happen. We all know the circumstances surrounding Mr. Black's appointment to the Supreme Court.feedback

Bob Woodward

Indeed there are comparisons. This is a remarkable moment. It's not something to take lightly. The circumstances, in fairness, are also quite different. And eventually there were more tapes. The Supreme Court forced Nixon to turn those over and that ended the reign.feedback

Emilio Nieves Torres

Our biggest preoccupation is that all of this will be in the hands of a judge, named by the Supreme Court of the United States, and we don't know if she's going to take into account basic essentials of safety, health and education. Right now, that board has proposed cutting school two days a month. That's a month of classes. That impacts education.feedback

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Marty coached me through the birth of our son, he was the first reader and critic of articles, speeches and briefs I drafted, and he was at my side constantly, in and out of the hospital, during two long bouts with cancer. And I betray no secret in reporting that, without him, I would not have gained a seat on the Supreme Court.feedback

Ajit Pai - FCC

I have had a chance to see the clip now and so, as we get complaints – and we have gotten a number of them – we are going to take the facts that we find and we are going to apply the law as it's been set out by the Supreme Court and a number of other courts. We'll take the appropriate action. After 10 p.m., the amount of conduct that the indecency rules are applied to is relaxed. In previous years, these complaints would just sit on the shelf and we're committed to making sure we evaluate these cases and try to do it in a timely way.feedback

Badri Singh

The court heard our voice and gave justice. We are very happy that (the) Supreme Court has heard our voice, and that they understood Nirbhaya's pain in this matter, and that along with Nirbhaya the whole country has found justice. This is a historic decision and will set an example for the courts in dealing with criminals.feedback

A.P. Singh

This is not justice for the poor. The constitution of India and the Supreme Court says justice for all. We did not get justice for all and this is not justice (death penalty).feedback

Radley Balko

Louisiana Supreme Court upholds 18-year sentence for 18 grams of pot. But the chief justice writes a fiery dissent.feedback

Ajit Pai - FCC

It's a free country. The FCC – outside of our decency rules – we don't get into the business of regulating content. What I can say is that I realize this is a politically polarized time and I would hope that everyone can participate in the public discourse in a way that's civil and operates in good faith. I have had a chance to see the clip now and so, as we get complaints, and we've gotten a number of them, we are going to take the facts that we find and we are going to apply the law as it's been set out by the Supreme Court and other courts and we'll take the appropriate action.feedback

James Bovard

The Justice Department is prosecuting a woman who laughed during a Senate hearing to confirm Jeff Sessions as attorney general. I can sympathize with her somewhat absurd plight, because I was once tossed out of the press box in the Supreme Court for laughing at the wrong time. Desiree Fairooz, a librarian in Arlington, Va., [].feedback

Andrew Schwartzman

The likelihood that Chairman Pai will seek to abandon the Commission's 2015 decision greatly diminishes the already low likelihood that the Supreme Court would want to hear the case.feedback

Daniel Berninger

I'm super excited. When we get to the Supreme Court, we want to be saying [to a largely conservative bench] this is a severe case of government overreach.feedback

Dennis Parker

With this decision, the Supreme Court has acknowledged the crucial role of municipal governments in protecting residents' rights. In housing and lending as in other areas, cities can and should serve as a bulwark against discrimination.feedback

Irin Carmon

You’ve heard the stories of the coat hanger and the back alley, those bloody days before Roe v. Wade. Sen. Patrick Leahy told one recently at the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Neil Gorsuch. As a state prosecutor in 1968, three years before the court struck down state abortion bans, cops woke him up [].feedback

Bram Fridhandler

Was it harder for the U.S. Supreme Court justices to dismiss the importance of confidentiality in psychotherapy while in the presence of someone who had gone to jail for it? We can only speculate. But we know that their decision has become the single most influential legal statement of the need for confidentiality to support effective psychotherapy, which they describe as a transcendent value for society.feedback

William Orrick

The Supreme Court concluded that the Affordable Care Act's threat of denying Medicaid funds, which constituted over 10 percent of the state's overall budget, was unconstitutionally coercive and represented a 'gun to the head'. The executive order threatens to deny sanctuary jurisdictions all federal grants, hundreds of millions of dollars on which the counties rely. The threat is unconstitutionally coercive.feedback

P.S. Ruckman

The conventional wisdom or the Supreme Court jargon to-date suggests that a president can pardon someone before, during or after conviction. Is it possible Trump could pardon for crimes he may have committed in some period of time? Absolutely, yes.feedback

Sara Duke

A great sketch also shows how the legal system works. Aggie Kenny's drawing of the landmark Falwell v. Hustler shows Larry Flynt outside the main proceedings. It's not the wheelchair that segregates Flynt but an outburst during a previous Supreme Court appearance. That decision gave cartoonists, comedians and writers the right to parody. It protects editorial cartoonists, but it also protects television parodies.feedback

Steve Bullock

Our experience since Citizens United suggests that individuals lose our voices with all the dark money that's allowed in the system now. That's an area where I am concerned about what will come from this new Supreme Court.feedback

Benjy Sarlin - NBC News

[H]e has made no progress on major legislation, a development that's especially troubling for a White House with unified control of government. His one significant item on the Hill, health care reform, crashed and burned. Instead, the president's had to settle for more limited victories via executive orders, along with a successful Supreme Court pick that unified his party... But supporters say such judgments are premature, not to mention off base. They describe the White House as a work in progress that's made a number of less-heralded moves that could pay off down the line.feedback

Sean Spicer

This case is yet one more example of egregious overreach by a single, unelected district judge. But we are confident we will ultimately prevail in the Supreme Court, just as we will prevail in our lawful efforts to impose immigration restrictions necessary to keep terrorists out of the United States. San Francisco, and cities like it, are putting the well-being of criminal aliens before the safety of our citizens, and those city officials who authored these policies have the blood of dead Americans on their hands.feedback

Jo Murkens

The supreme court said in no uncertain terms that a governmental veto was impermissible – a judicial decision, even one from a lowly tribunal, is binding on the government. If you apply that here you have on the one hand a political convention with no legal weight regulating restrictions during the purdah period, and on the other hand a legally binding decision of the high court. The government should not be able to use purdah to thwart an order from the high court.feedback

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

Jeff Sessions

I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the president of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and constitutional power. I think that it will be real important for America to have judges in the model of Judge [Neil] Gorsuch and [the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin] Scalia, people who serve under the law, under the Constitution, not above it, and they are faithful to the law. They honor it and don't try to remake it as they'd like it to be.feedback

Nina Morrison

Because [Lee], like Stacey Johnson, has never gotten a hearing on his DNA petition, and has maintained his innocence for over two decades, we are hopeful that the Arkansas Supreme Court will also grant him a stay and give him a hearing on the DNA evidence.feedback

Rhonda K. Wood

With no explanation or instruction, this matter has been remanded to the trial court for another hearing. Today, our court gives uncertainty to any case ever truly being final in the Arkansas Supreme Court.feedback

Scott Braden

You can be in the county court of a state in the morning, and by the afternoon, you're in the United States Supreme Court.feedback

Jeff Sessions

We won a case in Virginia recently that was a nicely-written order that just demolished, I thought, all the arguments that some of the other people have been making. We are confident that the President will prevail on appeal and particularly in the Supreme Court, if not the Ninth Circuit. So this is a huge matter. I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the President of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and Constitutional power.feedback

Penny Nance - Concerned Women for America

A loss here at the Supreme Court could mean that religious nonprofits could be excluded from government programs meant to serve the community. This is like telling the fire department they couldn't put out a fire because it's at a church. I don't think this one decision's going to be the magic want that's going to make all my dreams come true. I think it does pave the way. This sets precedent. It makes it easier.feedback

Holly Hollman

Religion has a special place in our constitutional tradition, a place that is protected by separating the institutions of religion and government. The U.S. Supreme Court has never upheld direct government grants to churches, much less required a state to provide such funding. This case is about whether the state has to pay for the property improvements of a church, despite nearly 200 years of precedent and many practical considerations that argue otherwise.feedback

Shawn Womack

The families are entitled to closure and finality of the law. It is inconceivable that this court, with the facts and the law well established, stays these executions over speculation that the (U.S.) Supreme Court might change the law.feedback

Jessica Vaughan

This is going to have to be decided by the Supreme Court, and I think that the administration is ready to do that.feedback

Will Baude

Next week the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in BNSF Railway v. Tyrrell, a case that has not been at the top of most media coverage about the court, despite confronting the important question.feedback

Leslie Rutledge

It is heartbreaking that the family of Jane Daniel has once again seen justice delayed. Davis was convicted of his crimes in 1992, and my office took every action it could today to see that justice was carried out. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court has the final say and has decided not to lift the stay at this time. There are five scheduled executions remaining with nothing preventing them from occurring, but I will continue to respond to any and all legal challenges brought by the prisoners. The families have waited far too long to see justice, and I will continue to make that a priority.feedback

Scott Braden

The Arkansas Supreme Court recognized that executing either man, before the [U.S. Supreme] Court answers this question for Mr. McWilliams, would be profoundly arbitrary and unjust.feedback

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

Judd Deere

As a public opponent of capital punishment, Judge Griffen should have recused himself from this case. Attorney General [Leslie] Rutledge intends to file an emergency request with the Arkansas Supreme Court to vacate the order as soon as possible.feedback

Judd Deere

As a public opponent of capital punishment, Judge Griffen should have recused himself from this case. Attorney General Rutledge intends to file an emergency request with the Arkansas Supreme Court to vacate the order as soon as possible. Bruce Ward was convicted of capital murder in 1990 and the State Supreme Court has previously upheld his conviction. The Court granted a stay of Ward's scheduled execution today but offered no reason for doing so. Attorney General Rutledge is evaluating options on how to proceed.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

Neil Gorsuch

I've always heard that the most important thing that a president of the United States does is appoint people – hopefully great people like this appointment – to the United States Supreme Court. And I can say this is a great honor. And I got it done in the first 100 days – that's even nice. You think that's easy?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

Marc Short

I think when you look back and you say in the first 100 days we will confirm a Supreme Court Justice, I consider that a pretty significant achievement.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

Leonard Leo

Supreme Court confirmations have become full-blown political campaigns.feedback

Bill Maher

They got their two favorite things: [Neil Gorsuch] on the Supreme Court and Trump finally blowing some s--- up. Even the liberals were all over this last night. Everybody loves this f------ thing. Cable news loves it when they show footage of destroyers firing cruise missiles at night. It's America's money shot.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

Ross Garber - Bentley

It's disappointing to hear the committee will plow forward while the Supreme Court is considering the case. We have no idea what the committee has planned for Monday or who its witnesses will be.feedback

Daniel Berninger

All eyes are on Pai to make a first move, but I promise he will wait for the Supreme Court outcome -- which no one has admitted remains in play.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

Lindsay Walters - Republican National Committee

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 Supreme Court…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

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

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

Richard Blumenthal

The independence of our judicial branch has never been more threatened or more important. The possibility of a Supreme Court needing to enforce a subpoena against the president of the United States is far from idle speculation. It has happened before in United States vs. Nixon. We're careening, literally, toward a constitutional crisis . And he's been nominated by a president who has repeatedly and relentlessly attacked the American judiciary on three separate occasions, their credibility and trust is in question.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

Bernard Marks

And when this gentleman (Homan) stands up there and says he doesn't go after people, he should read today's (Sacramento) Bee. Because in today's Bee, the Supreme Court Justice of the State of California objected to ICE coming in and taking people away from the courts. Don't tell me that this is a lie. We stand up here, Mr. Jones, don't forget. History is not on your side.feedback

Radley Balko

Last week, I wrote about L.A. County v. Mendez, a case currently before the Supreme Court. In the case, the police were looking for a rogue parolee. They got a tip from an informant that the man they were looking for was seen riding a bicycle past a particular house. Based only on that, two deputies searched the house without a warrant. They then saw a small shack in the back yard. They were told that the woman who owns the house had let a down-on-their-luck couple - Angel and Jennifer Mendez - live in the shack until they were back on their feet. The two deputies then searched that residence without a warrant as well. When the deputies opened the door, Angel Mendez reached for a BB gun he kept near the bed. He later said he wasn’t even reaching for the gun to scare away the intruders, only to move it so he could get out of bed. The two deputies opened fire, striking both Angel and Jennifer. Angel Mendez was shot several times and lost part of his leg. Jennifer was shot in the back.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

Radley Balko

Supreme Court rules that Texas can no longer consult texts like Of Mice and Men when assessing the mental competency of people the state wants to execute.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

Elena Kagan

For 30 years the Federal Circuit has been ignoring our decision, and the law has effectively been otherwise. Sometimes we have accidental theme days at the Supreme Court. So today's accidental theme is: When 30 years of practice goes against you, what happens?feedback

Sean Spicer

An attempted filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee is rare, and to do so in this context, with such an eminently qualified and brilliant judge, is nothing short of obstructionism. He deserves a fair, up-or-down vote.feedback

Ilya Somin

Perhaps the most distinctive aspect of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch’s jurisprudence is his opposition to “Chevron deference”: the doctrine (first imposed by a 1984 Supreme Court decision) that requires judges to defer to administrative agencies’ interpretations of federal law in most cases where the law may be “ambiguous” and the agency’s position seems “reasonable.” In what is probably his best-known opinion, Judge Gorsuch denounced Chevron deference as “a judge-made doctrine for the abdication of the judicial duty.” He’s absolutely right about that.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

Paul Waldman

Today brings yet another shocking revelation in the ever-widening Trump-Russia scandal, and Democrats are growing increasingly frustrated that this controversy isn’t an even bigger deal than it is. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wants a delay in the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court while the FBI’s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia is ongoing, but no one seems to take the idea seriously.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

Ed Rogers

Some matters are urgent, others are important. The president’s allegation of wiretapping has certainly risen to an urgent level in Washington, but it distracts from important developments such as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s shaking up the status quo on North Korea and the beginning of Judge Neil Gorsuch’s hearings. Time and again, coverage of the Trump administration’s substantive governing priorities has been disrupted by the president’s own unforced errors. Earlier today, FBI Director James B. Comey testified before the House Intelligence Committee that he has “no information” to support the president’s claims. Even though nothing new was revealed, “no information” will be today’s main story - not Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court or follow-up analysis from Tillerson’s trip to Asia.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

Dawn Johnsen

The Senate should refuse to confirm anyone President Trump nominates to the Supreme Court – until Trump re-nominates and the Senate confirms Judge Merrick Garland.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

Tom Goldstein

'It would be shocking if Neil Gorsuch wasn't confirmed to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks,'. 'The Democrats are committed to opposing him. Their base is insisting on it, because of what happened to President Obama's nominee. But the reality is, they just don't have the votes and don't have the goods.'.feedback

John Elway

Neil is a big Denver Broncos fan, and I can tell you that I'm a big fan of his. I look forward to having Neil Gorsuch, one of our own from the great state of Colorado, as the next Supreme Court Justice. A native of Colorado, Neil has demonstrated tremendous intelligence, character and fairness while serving for more than a decade on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. His credentials, integrity and sound moral compass are major reasons why he's already received so much bipartisan support for his nomination.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

Carrie Severino

We've known for years, before Justice Scalia passed, that this next president would have two or three Supreme Court nominations.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

share this quote