To me, the practical experience you had is almost the best one can have in terms of being a good judge.

I focused quite heavily on the Congressional record that had been put together before McCain/Feingold.

But was it improper for Justice Scalia to consider dictionary definitions?

Congress came to the common sense conclusion that these expenditures had a poisonous effect on our democracy.

The majority wrote this court now concludes that independent expenditures including those made by Corporations do not despite huge Congressional findings to the contrary...

I don't agree with how this case has been characterized by some of my colleagues.

And it sure wasn't improper of the Chief Justice to consider such sources in reaching his decision, was it?

It wasn't about banning books or about restricting who can speak, it was about Congress making its best judgment on limits on how much can be spent.

Congress never would have intended that because it is impractical.

What is the role of pragmatism in judging in this sense?

Citizens United... is a confounding and deeply troubling opinion for a whole lot of reasons.

Thank you. On behalf of the chairman, thank you for your kind remarks and thank you for your very avid participation in the entire hearing.

I think that people can have a lot of different opinions, but... the facts, what records show, what the trial courts found, that is where the real wisdom would lie.

I would just caution the public in inferring too much from positions as an advocate.

I think you're doing just great. I think the hearings are showing the American people that you are the kind of person many of us believe you to be, thoughtful and practical and moderate.

There can be liberal activists and conservative activists.

Senator Byrd's fierce devotion to the Constitution hovers over this hearing.

You said you believed it was critical for judges to be deferential to the decisions of the people and their elected representatives.