We must apply a judicial, not a political, standard to this record. Asking a judicial nominee whose side you will be on in future cases is a political standard.
The only ones who will see an increase in pay are some of the trial lawyers who bring the cases.
Vigilant and effective antitrust enforcement today is preferable to the heavy hand of government regulation of the Internet tomorrow.
You know, we should not be giving cash to people who basically are just going to blow it on drugsand not take care of their own children.
This principle that judges are not politicians lies at the very heart of a judicial job – of the judicial job description.
I do know dumb-ass questions when I see dumb-ass questions.
Our heroes are fighting to bring stability to the Middle East, and they have put pressure on all of the tyrannies of the Middle East. They have taken a stand against tyranny, against terrorists, and for the prospect of decent societies throughout that region.
Graduation is not the end; it’s the beginning.
We’re going to find out who did this and we’re going after the bastards.
A judicial standard means that a judicious decision can be entirely correct, even when the result does not line up with our preferred political positions or cater to certain political interests.
We cannot let our respect for the FBI blind us from the fact the FBI has sometimes come up short of our expectations.
No matter how badly senators want to know things, judicial nominees are limited in what they may discuss. That limitation is real, and it comes from the very nature of what judges do.
Judges who take the law into their own hands, who make up constitutional ‘rights’ in order to strike down laws they oppose, undermine the people’s right to have their values shape public policy and define the culture.
But I bear witness to Christ, too. I really know him to be the savior of the world. And that means more to me than almost anything else I know.
The First Amendment is not an altar on which we must sacrifice our children, families, and community standards. Obscene material that is not protected by the First Amendment can and must be prohibited.
We should evaluate judges and judicial nominees based on the general process for applying the law to any legal disputes, not on the specific result in a particular case or dispute.
Under the Constitution, the president, not the Senate, nominates and appoints judges. The Senate has a different role. We must give our advice .
Scorecards are common in the political process, but they are inappropriate in the judicial process. The most important tools in the judicial confirmation process are not litmus paper and a calculator.
When Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg was before us in 1993, she said that her standard was to give no hints, no forecasts, no previews, and declined to answer dozens of questions.
Because judges may not issue advisory opinions, judicial nominees may not do so either, especially on issues likely to come before the court. That rule has always been honored.