U.S. State Attorneys General

The real-life impact of the Shelby County decision was that 13 States passed laws that could be deemed voter suppression laws.

And after the obstacles to voting we have seen since Shelby County, we now know that Congress got it right, that the evidence showed a continuing need for Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and the Supreme Court got it wrong when it…

Both the process and the outcome in the Shelby County case raise exactly the kind of concerns that make it so important for us on the Committee and in the Senate to understand your judicial philosophy.

Many of them cited that speech to justify their opposition to her nomination.

Apples and oranges do not begin to describe the differences between what Donald Trump said and what we are seeking to do here.

Some have even gone so far as to conflate the questions we are raising about your record in the course of our advise and consent responsibilities with Donald Trump's abhorrent attacks on Federal judges.

But by tilting the political playing field so heavily to toward corporations and against individuals, has the Court not impacted the composition of who is in Congress and made it, therefore, even harder for Congress to take meaningful…

Well, clearly, elections have an impact on the composition of the Court because we have you. We do not have Judge Merrick Garland.

So given your clear understanding of the relationship between the political process and the courts, would you acknowledge that these decisions, Shelby County and Citizens United, have had an impact on our elections?

Taken together, these two decisions, Citizens United and Shelby County, have made it harder for millions of Americans to have their voices heard in our elections process.

The Roberts court, in another narrow 5-4 decision in Shelby County, substituted its conclusions for that of Congress and gutted core protections of the Voting Rights Act.

The Court struck down bipartisan laws limiting campaign contributions that went back more than a century and opened a flow of money and potential corruption that has dominated our politics.

We have seen the tremendous, in my view, damage the Court can do to our political process when it tilts the electoral process so heavily against ordinary Americans.

The Court's legitimacy itself is at risk when it strays too far into the political thicket, such as by deciding an election such as it did in Bush v. Gore.

I am deeply concerned about the decision the Court itself, the Supreme Court itself, has made which has tilted the political field so significantly.

You consistently choose corporations and powerful interests over people, ideology over common sense, and, indeed, the purpose of the law.

The sheer volume of speech bought by corporate money drowns out the voices of everyday Americans on important issues.

If corporations are able to spend unfettered money on American elections, what is there to stop a foreign company from funneling money into our elections through its American subsidiary?

The Court adopted a narrow view that only quid pro quo corruption counts regarding campaign contributions and that appearance of corruption, basically, which had also been a concern, is out the window.

If judges are going to work this hard to strain the text of a law to undermine the purpose, which was for the safety and that a driver who made a decision based on that would not be fired, I think that makes it pretty tough for any laws…

Will the Court protect access to our justice system or slam the courthouse door to all but the wealthiest among us?

Will the Court protect our land, water, our earth, or gut decades of environmental regulations?

Will the Court protect the right to vote for all Americans or allow States to use voter fraud as an excuse to disenfranchise vulnerable communities?

Will the Court protect free and fair elections by stopping unfettered campaign spending or allow corporations and the ultra-rich to hijack our democracy with dark money?